# Early K-lite results



## dodidoki (Feb 26, 2013)

I don't know, if it is because of K-lite or not... I use this method for 2 months.
Because of it or not but root systems are growing significantly more vigorously.
Few pics: hirs. album, hookerae, kovachii, phil. album, roth. rex X mm, roth. tiger march, stonei.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 26, 2013)

Bessae:


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 26, 2013)

I too, believe, I have seen some growth improvement. It's, also, been close to 2 months for me.

I have noticed my new growths seem to be growing faster and stronger compared to last year.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 26, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> I don't know, if it is because of K-lite or not... I use this method for 2 months.
> Because of it or not but root systems are growing significantly more vigorously.
> Few pics: hirs. album, hookerae, kovachii, phil. album, roth. rex X mm, roth. tiger march, stonei.



Did you repot the plants into fresh media when you started using K-lite? Or did you simply change the type of fertilizer and the pots continue growing in the old media?


----------



## Ray (Feb 26, 2013)

Holy crap! Everything turned pink, too!


----------



## The Orchid Boy (Feb 26, 2013)

Ray said:


> Holy crap! Everything turned pink, too!



:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## NYEric (Feb 26, 2013)

I was trying to figure out what media you were using until I saw the close-up.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 26, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Did you repot the plants into fresh media when you started using K-lite? Or did you simply change the type of fertilizer and the pots continue growing in the old media?



Some was repotted, some was not. ( kovachii and roths are in the same mix for 6 months)


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 26, 2013)

NYEric said:


> I was trying to figure out what media you were using until I saw the close-up.



It depends on plant. Some are in pine bark, some are in mix of clay balls and bark, others are in mix of akadama, bark and clay balls ( phrags), others are covered by NZ sphagnum ( eg. hookerae)


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 26, 2013)

The Orchid Boy said:


> :rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:



I'm afraid that one day police will come for cannabis....(GH has nice pink light in night)


----------



## gonewild (Feb 26, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> Some was repotted, some was not. ( kovachii and roths are in the same mix for 6 months)



Do you observe any difference in the ones that were repotted or not?

Is your observation that all plants are doing very well since using K-lite?

Have you noticed any plants that look like they are doing worse?


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm not sure about dodidoki, but for myself the plants a doing better. A few are in new mix (just because the old mix needed changed, breakdown) and the rest are in old-ish mix. Both new and old mix plants are showing positive results with k-lite. I haven't seen any negative reactions. In fact, one plant that was showing Nitrogen issues (reddening around the leaves) is getting better with the newest leaves not showing any reddening.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 27, 2013)

I left in old mix my plants, what grow fine ( eg. kovachii), this case I couldn't see reason for repotting. Others, I noticed that doesn't grow well, I repotted ( eg. another kovachii, what produced 5 new fat root during this period.

In all I can see mainly improvement, I can't see negative signs till this moment. This period I think is too short for conclusions but first sings are good, anyway.


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 27, 2013)

Is this your normal growth season? 

I'm just starting to have things warm up, a little, around here and growth should start picking up. The sunlight is, also, lasting longer.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 27, 2013)

wjs2nd said:


> Is this your normal growth season?
> 
> I'm just starting to have things warm up, a little, around here and growth should start picking up. The sunlight is, also, lasting longer.



Don't know...I keep them around 17-18 C, 16 hours artef light, 75-80 % humidity, once/week watering. Is 18 C too much, maybe?


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 27, 2013)

In the winter I keep all my orchids at 16.1C at night and 20C in the day. During the summer everything is warmer. 

Do you keep your artificial light on 16 hours a day all year? I keep my lights on 12 hours in the winter and 16 hours in the summer. I like to fallow the seasonal changes outside with light.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 27, 2013)

wjs2nd said:


> In the winter I keep all my orchids at 16.1C at night and 20C in the day. During the summer everything is warmer.
> 
> Do you keep your artificial light on 16 hours a day all year? I keep my lights on 12 hours in the winter and 16 hours in the summer. I like to fallow the seasonal changes outside with light.



I try to mimic natural envirionments. These plants live around equator, where sunligh is always around 12 huors/day every day of the year. Summer I use less artef light but in winter I use more for compensation lack of sunlight.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 27, 2013)

By the way, my main problem is not haeting, but cooling in summer. Last summer I lost many plants because of unusulal heat, 24-25 C at night, 35-38 C at noon in shade.....some of plants died within one day....at morning nice green plant, in afternoon only a brownish smurf. That was terrible! So I decide to become independent from natural envirionment. I will shade my GH almost copletely with heat reflecting foils and supply my plants with artef light. Now I'm searching the way.


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 27, 2013)

Good idea! My first thought was some kind of foil or aluminet (reflective shade cloth). 
Have you thought about a evaporactive cooler or some kind of misting system? I know they can really help keep temps down. Strong air movement can, also, help.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 27, 2013)

Of course I have, but not enough in a hot summer day. After last summer I decided about subtotal shading of GH.


----------



## Rick (Feb 28, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> I'm afraid that one day police will come for cannabis....(GH has nice pink light in night)



Ya

Especially if you have everything lined with aluminum foil!!


----------



## tomkalina (Feb 28, 2013)

At what equivalent nitrogen concentrations are you all applying the K-Lite, and how frequently ?


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 28, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> At what equivalent nitrogen concentrations are you all applying the K-Lite, and how frequently ?



14% N ( 7 % NO3, 3,5% Urea, 3,5% NH4),
TDS all: 130-140 ppm, ( I use RO water for fert. solution, TDS 5-6 ppm), N total is about 20-21 ppm. I use it every third waterings, I water once / week.


----------



## emydura (Feb 28, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> 14% N ( 7 % NO3, 3,5% Urea, 3,5% NH4),
> TDS all: 130-140 ppm, ( I use RO water for fert. solution, TDS 5-6 ppm), N total is about 20-21 ppm. I use it every third waterings, I water once / week.



So you fertilise once every 3 weeks?


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 28, 2013)

Intreresting results. 

I water every 3 days and use the k-lite (at 100ppm) every other watering. I added kelpmax every 2 weeks (every 5th watering to be exact).


----------



## Ray (Feb 28, 2013)

I have been using it at 50 ppm N at every watering for the last year. I have a Paph Cheryl Ann Boyd I got from Theresa Hill last spring in-bloom. It is in bloom again, in the same pot, and I swear the flower is easily 50% bigger. I have noted similar improvements with others, but that one is just SUCH an improvement, that it stands out.


----------



## tomkalina (Feb 28, 2013)

Billy, 

Is that 100 ppm N or 100 ppm total dissolved solids once you add the K-Lite?


----------



## tomkalina (Feb 28, 2013)

Ray,

Are you using it for semi-hydro irrigation as well?


----------



## Rick (Feb 28, 2013)

For fall/winter I've been using 30-50ppm N once a week (3-7 waterings a week depending on mounted, basket, or traditional potted).

On some extended cloudy cool weeks I skip the weekly big feeding and just give daily or EOD feedings 5ppm N.


----------



## wjs2nd (Feb 28, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> Billy,
> 
> Is that 100 ppm N or 100 ppm total dissolved solids once you add the K-Lite?



Hi Tom,
I use distilled water and add 100 ppm of N to my water. I'm not sure what the TDS of the distilled water is, but should be very low. Here is my watering schedule: 
water
water + fertilizer
water
water + fertilizer + kelpmax. 
Correction to past post, I add kelpmax every 4th watering not 5th.


----------



## tomkalina (Feb 28, 2013)

Thanks for the info. We just started changing over to K-Lite and I'm planning to alternate watering with plain water (70% R/O + 30% Lake Michigan - Chicago water) with a TDS reading of 80-90 ppm, and plain water + K-L fertilizer @ 70 ppm equivalent N conc. Watering schedule will vary with the season, ranging from once weekly to twice weekly.


----------



## Ray (Feb 28, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> Ray,
> 
> Are you using it for semi-hydro irrigation as well?



Everything, Tom. S/H, bark, sphagnum, baskets sans any medium, mounted.


----------



## get (Mar 3, 2013)

Hello:
I would try giving results K-lite, shame that in my country can not find these fertilizers.
I would like you give me the opinion of a fertilizer 5-0-1 with 7% Ca
It doesn´t containe P or neither Mg, I added Mg as epson salt (what proportion to the necessary?)
That problem you see in the absence of P? and how could I fix it.
greetings


----------



## dodidoki (Mar 3, 2013)

get said:


> Hello:
> I would try giving results K-lite, shame that in my country can not find these fertilizers.
> I would like you give me the opinion of a fertilizer 5-0-1 with 7% Ca
> It doesn´t containe P or neither Mg, I added Mg as epson salt (what proportion to the necessary?)
> ...




K-lite formula is not available in my country, too. I solved this problem by mixing fertilizers.

Eg.:

one part 27% N solution ( 2:1:1 NO3:urea:NH4)
two parts 21% Ca /10% N
4 parts 4% Mg ( 1/3 celated/So4)
1,5 part N:k + micros (10/10/8 %)

Epsom is hydrated ( hepta) formula, if you solve 100g in 150 g distilled water, you will have 4% Mg solution.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

get said:


> Hello:
> I would try giving results K-lite, shame that in my country can not find these fertilizers.
> I would like you give me the opinion of a fertilizer 5-0-1 with 7% Ca
> It doesn´t containe P or neither Mg, I added Mg as epson salt (what proportion to the necessary?)
> ...



This isn't a bad mix.

you could add a pinch of bone meal to your potting mix for phosphorus (that's calcium phosphate).

Horticulturists used bone meal for Ca and PO4 and blood meal for nitrogen for probably over a hundred years before we came up with these high tech inorganic fertilizers. Those materials were probably in use by orchid growers in the 1800's.


----------



## get (Mar 3, 2013)

Hello:

Thanks dodidoki and Rick for the reply!
I buy it, and I just add these two elements to look like a K-lite home

I´m reading and in canna forums, recommend a drug to add P. The composition :
This medicine is: For 100 ml: Disodium phosphate dodecahydrate, 3.2 g, sodium dihydrogen phosphate, 13.9 g
And in the same forum recommend these amounts: 2 liters of water + 1 cc drug = 65 ppm PO4.
They think of this?. 
The mg, which would add to the epson

Thanks again.


----------



## Ray (Mar 7, 2013)

I've been conversing with a K-Lite user who primarily grows cattleyas and a few dendrobiums, down in southwestern Florida. Many are in LECA, others are in bark- or CHC-based media, others are mounted.

She has seen good growth and blooming, but is observing what appears to be premature loss of leaves on back-bulbs. She states that the old leaves turn solid brick red, then pale to yellow, and fall off.

Bill Argo suspects a phosphorus deficiency, and if that's the case, the recommendations here would apply to her.

So my question is "why is she the only one seeing this?"


----------



## keithrs (Mar 7, 2013)

What rate is she using? How long has she been using it?


----------



## Ray (Mar 7, 2013)

I think 100 ppm N, for about 9 months or so.

Rainfall does a lot of flushing, but that's pretty much a constant down there, and she says the only difference was going from MSURO to K-Lite.


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 7, 2013)

is she using tons of bark? the whole combination of weather and culture/plants may be burning up more of the fertilizer (though in bark the bacteria or whatever is supposed to burn up n). I thought that there needed to be a little more p; could be that her plants just burn through the fertilizer and grow so quickly/fully that they need more in the very warm and rainy conditions. tons of clear water flushing would seemingly pull nutrients out of the plants, especially if there isn't a ton of extra in the fertilizer


----------



## Rick (Mar 7, 2013)

Ray said:


> She has seen good growth and blooming, but is observing what appears to be premature loss of leaves on back-bulbs. She states that the old leaves turn solid brick red, then pale to yellow, and fall off.



Only the leaves on old bloomed out growths? But no issues with new growth or rates of growth with new growths?

I never considered old leaf senesence (with lots of old backbulbs around) abnormal in Catts, so maybe its just different rather than bad.

But when orchids senesce leaves they do recall more P than any other macronutrient for the next round of growth. So maybe the new fert regime has started a new round of growth and putting the plant in "panic mode" to conserve P since its not in excess like in the good old days.

Another option that just occured to me is that K inhibits Ca and Mg uptake, which also influences P uptake. So if the Ca and Mg are now uninhibited, the increase of Ca/Mg in the tissues could be signalling for an increase in P and stimulating P recycle in the old growths (whether it needs to or not).


----------



## gonewild (Mar 7, 2013)

If a plant has all the correct nutrients available for all new growth what is the advantage to the plant to continue to send resources to old growths? 

Ray this is a perfect opportunity to test if K-lite needs more P. Can you help this grower add P to her k-lite formula? If she does and this "red" leaf drop stops Then perhaps K-lite could be increased in P.

But as Rick suggested first must determine if the dropping of old leaves is a new bad thing or a normal event the grower just never saw in such a pronounced way. If her plants are growing new leaves more vigorously and faster it stands to reason that the plants would also shed old leaves with an equal and opposite force.


----------



## dodidoki (Mar 7, 2013)

Ray said:


> I've been conversing with a K-Lite user who primarily grows cattleyas and a few dendrobiums, down in southwestern Florida. Many are in LECA, others are in bark- or CHC-based media, others are mounted.
> 
> She has seen good growth and blooming, but is observing what appears to be premature loss of leaves on back-bulbs. She states that the old leaves turn solid brick red, then pale to yellow, and fall off.
> 
> ...



I think Rick's article is aswer your question. Paphs are slow grower and I think, they can uptake enough K for growing from older growths and rotting litter, too. Catts grow faster so maybe they need a little more K and there are less rotting parts around their roots so if they have not enough they begin to reuptake it from older parts. So I think catts need more K than paphs , maybe 14: 6 N/K ( for paphs optimal 14/3).


----------



## gonewild (Mar 7, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> I think Rick's article is aswer your question. Paphs are slow grower and I think, they can uptake enough K for growing from older growths and rotting litter, too. Catts grow faster so maybe they need a little more K and there are less rotting parts around their roots so if they have not enough they begin to reuptake it from older parts. So I think catts need more K than paphs , maybe 14: 6 N/K ( for paphs optimal 14/3).



Or simply more of all nutrients?


----------



## Ray (Mar 7, 2013)

Responding to the last two responses in order:

My cattleyas are not showing any signs of deficiencies. I'm reasonably sure she's not the only other person growing them.

Well, she did a direct replacement of the MSU - same concentration and frequency of application.


----------



## dodidoki (Mar 7, 2013)

Ray said:


> Responding to the last two responses in order:
> 
> My cattleyas are not showing any signs of deficiencies. I'm reasonably sure she's not the only other person growing them.
> 
> Well, she did a direct replacement of the MSU - same concentration and frequency of application.




She is not the only person. Eg. my cattl. aurea and two rositas are just starting to push up a new growth, each. And all of three catts also push new roots, too. But at the same time oldest leaf begins to turns yellow. I think it is some sign of deficiency, maybe K or P, so I will increase them in fert. water for catts.


----------



## terryros (Mar 7, 2013)

Rick - I have wanted you to comment on the properties of sphagnum moss and its binding properties. I am in the original K-Lite group but also use pure sphagnum as a medium. My reading says that sphagnum will be active with ion uptake and play a role. I have been using only 30-50 ppm N because of this. What is the differential role of sphagnum with the important electrolytes? I do periodically test effluent EC and pH to make sure the EC stays pretty low (not over 0.4) and the pH is around 5.5 -6.0.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Rick (Mar 7, 2013)

Ray said:


> down in southwestern Florida. Many are in LECA, others are in bark- or CHC-based media, others are mounted.



Indoor, outdoor, GH, Shade house? Humidity control????

The Southeast US got slammed with heat/drought this year.

And leaf drop would be a totally expected response for CAM plants under extra heat/ low humidity conditions. TDS increases also induce drought response in Catts, so if evaporation rates were up and pot TDS went up with it (regardless of fert type) then expect the plant to drop leaves in response.


----------



## Rick (Mar 7, 2013)

terryros said:


> Rick - I have wanted you to comment on the properties of sphagnum moss and its binding properties. I am in the original K-Lite group but also use pure sphagnum as a medium. My reading says that sphagnum will be active with ion uptake and play a role. I have been using only 30-50 ppm N because of this. What is the differential role of sphagnum with the important electrolytes? I do periodically test effluent EC and pH to make sure the EC stays pretty low (not over 0.4) and the pH is around 5.5 -6.0.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I think CHC will ulimately hold up more ions than moss, but I believe it can get saturated pretty fast. I think your strategy to watch/control EC and not use more than 30-50 ppm is sound. You can probably use 100ppm, but will probably find that EC goes up faster, and need to flush more frequently to keep it down.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 7, 2013)

Ray said:


> Responding to the last two responses in order:
> 
> My cattleyas are not showing any signs of deficiencies. I'm reasonably sure she's not the only other person growing them.
> 
> Well, she did a direct replacement of the MSU - same concentration and frequency of application.



Your plants are in a controlled greenhouse environment with little fluctuations.
Is that correct?

I have the impression hers are growing outdoors in a garden environment?

If this is the case and your plants are not showing the same red leaf then the environment is probably the direction. It is probably a mistake to assume one fertilizer formula will work perfectly in two such different environments.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 7, 2013)

Ray said:


> So my question is "why is she the only one seeing this?"



Don't try to solve a problem until you are sure it is a problem.

How much is she actually seeing?
Is this happening on most plants or only one or two?
On all genera or only Catts?
Is this ongoing or seasonal?

Since she is the only one reporting this then to consider it you need to know if there is actually a widespread condition or is this something that she just noticed on a few plants and it has her worried.

She says the leaves fall prematurely.... and what is premature in reality?
If the new growth is vigorous and blooms are correct then the plant has no need for the old foliage. Perhaps what she is seeing is actually normal growth rather than plants hanging on to old leaves trying to rake in enough minerals to produce new growth.

It is not uncommon for leaves to turn pretty colors before they fall.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 7, 2013)

Is this the same person that was discussed in an earlier thread or a new person?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 7, 2013)

keithrs said:


> Is this the same person that was discussed in an earlier thread or a new person?



Or same person with a new current report?


----------



## Stone (Mar 7, 2013)

Rick said:


> I think CHC will ulimately hold up more ions than moss, but I believe it can get saturated pretty fast. I think your strategy to watch/control EC and not use more than 30-50 ppm is sound. You can probably use 100ppm, but will probably find that EC goes up faster, and need to flush more frequently to keep it down.


 
Here's an interesting thread ( page 1) (and links) on cec of coco on ''another forum'' 
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=142846


----------



## Rick (Mar 7, 2013)

Stone said:


> Here's an interesting thread ( page 1) (and links) on cec of coco on ''another forum''
> https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=142846



I'll try to link some other articles on coco coir. I have the PDF downloads, but I can't figure out how to upload those directly. They are some of the information that ANTEC used with regards to the problems with chc holding K/Na and needing calcium/magnesium to knock it out of matrix.

http://www.agrococo.com/Bethke/NUTRIENT_ANALYSIS_OF_AGROCOIR.pdf

This one is real upbeat on the high amount of K in the matrix.

http://www.usu.edu/cpl/PDF/CoconutCoirPaper.pdf
But when you check out this one, the K retentive aspects of chc will scare the crap out of you.

Sphagnum moss and sphagnum peat are comparisons in both articles.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

Ray said:


> I've been conversing with a K-Lite user who primarily grows cattleyas and a few dendrobiums, down in southwestern Florida. Many are in LECA, others are in bark- or CHC-based media, others are mounted.
> 
> She has seen good growth and blooming, but is observing what appears to be premature loss of leaves on back-bulbs. She states that the old leaves turn solid brick red, then pale to yellow, and fall off.
> 
> ...



Hi Everybody, I'm the person Ray is referring to here, and I really appreciate the comments that have been given. To answer some of the questions, I thought it might be easier if I joined and answered them myself instead of going through Ray.

First, I don't use bark at all. The majority of my plants are in inorganic media, with about 10 still in CHC, they just haven't been repotted since I switched.

These are the trends I've noticed - although there are a few exceptions to the trends.

This only is affecting the sympodials. I don't have many monopodials, but I'm not seeing any issues with them.

The leaf drop for the most part starts happening when the plant comes into flower. There are one or two exceptions where a plant that has flowered hasn't dropped it's older leaves, and I have one plant that is dropping older leaves that hasn't bloomed. But for numbers, I'm seeing this so far on about 50 - 60 plants.

I don't really see any issues on my mounted plants, with one exception - although the majority of my mounted plants are deciduous Dendrobiums.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

CNYCharles - I dont use bark at all in my pots.

Rick - "Only the leaves on old bloomed out growths? But no issues with new growth or rates of growth with new growths?" Mostly. The new growth and rate of new growth are ok. I have seen new growths stronger since I switched to K-lite.

Gonewild - "Can you help this grower add P to her k-lite formula? If she does and this "red" leaf drop stops Then perhaps K-lite could be increased in P." I started something to try this, and Ray has passed along suggestions for adding more P.

Rick- "Indoor, outdoor, GH, Shade house? Humidity control????

The Southeast US got slammed with heat/drought this year.

And leaf drop would be a totally expected response for CAM plants under extra heat/ low humidity conditions. TDS increases also induce drought response in Catts, so if evaporation rates were up and pot TDS went up with it (regardless of fert type) then expect the plant to drop leaves in response."

I actually live in coastal NW Florida, we have not been under a drought at all. As for humidity levels, we average 70 - 80% year round, and this is inside. We do occasionally get a dry spell and drop to about 50 - 60% humidity. But I do nothing to control it as the plants spend the majority of the time outside. Temps have been normal for the most part this past year.

Gonewild - "I have the impression hers are growing outdoors in a garden environment?" Yes mostly. All my orchids spent about mid-March through November outside. But maybe 30% of them do come inside and are put under light during the winter time. These are ones that I dont think will take the outside temps during winter.

Again thank you everyone!


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

Gonewild - "How much is she actually seeing?
Is this happening on most plants or only one or two?
On all genera or only Catts?
Is this ongoing or seasonal?"

This is happening on most plants that have bloomed since last fall. Many of my plants are mid to late spring bloomers, and a few are summer bloomers, and I haven't seen anything suspicious on the plants that haven't bloomed. Total number of plants this has happenend to, 50 - 60.

I don't think I see a correlation or not between my different genera. I grow Catt Alliance (100 or so plants), Dendrobiums (150 or so plants), Catasteums and Bulbophyllums (50 plants) and a mix of odds and ends. I don't see any problems with the Catasetums, which are potted in spag, but I wouldn't, would I  Dendrobiums, if they are mounted, not really seeing a problem, if they are potted definitely yes. I have a BALD Dendrobium convolutum that won't stop blooming. Bulbos, yes if they have bloomed over the winter. But many of mine are summer bloomers.

As for ongoing or seasonal - seasonal if you consider blooming a season. When the plants stops blooming, any leaves that haven't started the change do not.

Gonewild - "She says the leaves fall prematurely.... and what is premature in reality?
If the new growth is vigorous and blooms are correct then the plant has no need for the old foliage. Perhaps what she is seeing is actually normal growth rather than plants hanging on to old leaves trying to rake in enough minerals to produce new growth."

Good points. Some of the plants this is happening to, I have had for over 10 years, and yes I know old leaves drop and I know their growth habits. But leaves that are two to three years old have never done this before for me. My plants, especially if they are blooming overexceptionally well (which many are) are going bald. I don't think that is normal. When I first noticed this happening, I did spend some time telling myself I was seeing things. I'm not a worrier when it comes to growing orchids. But once the wintertime bloomers started blooming, and there were enough that were doing this, I had to approach Ray and try and figure out what is going on.

It is possible this is not related to K-lite. And yes it's possible I'm imagining things. But I don't think so, there are too many all at the same time.

Thank you everyone for their thoughts and suggestions. I hope what I have written here has given you enough additional information.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> Gonewild - "Can you help this grower add P to her k-lite formula? If she does and this "red" leaf drop stops Then perhaps K-lite could be increased in P." I started something to try this, and Ray has passed along suggestions for adding more P.


Add some more K too and then you will have a properly formulated fertilizer.



> Good points. Some of the plants this is happening to, I have had for over 10 years, and yes I know old leaves drop and I know their growth habits. But leaves that are two to three years old have never done this before for me. My plants, especially if they are blooming overexceptionally well (which many are) are going bald. I don't think that is normal. When I first noticed this happening, I did spend some time telling myself I was seeing things. I'm not a worrier when it comes to growing orchids. But once the wintertime bloomers started blooming, and there were enough that were doing this, I had to approach Ray and try and figure out what is going on.


It seems that your plants are starved for one or more nutrients, probably both potassium and phosphorus, and are cannabalizing the older leaves to obtain the materials necessary for new growth.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 8, 2013)

Rick said:


> ...
> http://www.usu.edu/cpl/PDF/CoconutCoirPaper.pdf
> But when you check out this one, the K retentive aspects of chc will scare the crap out of you.
> 
> Sphagnum moss and sphagnum peat are comparisons in both articles.


A good argument for not using coir but this article does not provide much _if any_ confirmatory evidence for your potassium toxicity thesis, neither do the Antec articles.

The summary from the article referenced above:
"These studies show that coconut coir should be used with great caution ... The addition of calcium sulfate to the media did not have a consistently beneficial effect ... We are continuing these studies to determine the causes of poor plant growth in coir."


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> She says the leaves fall prematurely.... and what is premature in reality?
> If the new growth is vigorous and blooms are correct then the plant has no need for the old foliage. Perhaps what she is seeing is actually normal growth rather than plants hanging on to old leaves trying to rake in enough minerals to produce new growth.



You consider losing a leaf for each new leaf to be normal growth? No wonder that your plants eventually whither away and die.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 8, 2013)

I think it's quite normal for some catts to "shed" the older(2-5 yrs) leaves if the plant is healthy. Looks quite normal looking at pics of wild catts.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

> DavidCampen said:
> 
> 
> > You consider losing a leaf for each new leaf to be normal growth?
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

keithrs said:


> I think it's quite normal for some catts to "shed" the older(2-5 yrs) leaves if the plant is healthy. Looks quite normal looking at pics of wild catts.



100% correct.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 8, 2013)

keithrs said:


> I think it's quite normal for some catts to "shed" the older(2-5 yrs) leaves if the plant is healthy. Looks quite normal looking at pics of wild catts.



Cattleyas in the wild are struggling to survive so you would expect them to be exhibiting symtoms of less than perfect health.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 8, 2013)

> Originally Posted by DavidCampen
> You consider losing a leaf for each new leaf to be normal growth?





> Is it abnormal?


It is definitely abnormal.




> No wonder that your plants eventually whither away and die.





> Why would you make a statement like this?


So why are you using "k-lite", what perceived problems are you trying to treat?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Welcome rcb!

I think if we can go through facts and your observations we can solve your problem, if in fact it is a problem.

How long have you been using the K-lite?

When you see the leaf turn red is it only at the time of new growth or at bloom?

Have you seen any leaves that grew "new" during the K-lite use that have turned red and fallen? 

How old are the leaves that are falling?

On a Cattleya plant how many new leaves are there and how many old leaves?

As a general observation how do you compare the new growth growing with K-lite to the way new growth grew with MSU?

Can you show any pictures of your plants?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Cattleyas in the wild are struggling to survive so you would expect them to be exhibiting symtoms of less than perfect health.



Are you serious? Have you ever been out of the city?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> It is definitely abnormal.



What do you base your statement on?




> So why are you using "k-lite", what perceived problems are you trying to treat?



Did I say I use K-lite?

Using K-lite is not to treat problems it is to grow better plants.
That said the observations form growers using K-lite are that they are noticing reduced rot problems in their collections, more growths, more blooms, bigger blooms, more roots, bigger roots.

So far there are only two people that say K-lite does not work, You and Segun. Neither of you have used K-lite and I find it strange you are so convinced it does not improve growth. Rick asked you what your agenda is and I asked if you were a Troll and you don't even know the answer to those questions. 

Maybe we can keep this thread about learning about rcb's red leaves by sticking to facts and observations from the collective ST knowledge base.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 8, 2013)

> Did I say I use K-lite?


So do you or don't you use "k-lite".



> Using K-lite is not to treat problems it is to grow better plants.


That is not what the AOS article said.


> I find it strange you are so convinced it does not improve growth. Rick asked you what your agenda is and I asked if you were a Troll and you don't even know the answer to those questions.


I answered Rick's question obliquely the same day and you replied to it by spouting gibberish. I didn't answer your question because I did not think it was a genuine question worth bothering with but the anwer is no.



> Maybe we can keep this thread about learning about rcb's red leaves by sticking to facts and observations from the collective ST knowledge base


That seems to mean only those who do not disagree with you.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> So do you or don't you use "k-lite".



Does it matter?



> That is not what the AOS article said.



Really? I guess I should read the article.



> I answered Rick's question obliquely the same day and you replied to it by spouting gibberish. I didn't answer your question because I did not think it was a genuine question worth bothering with but the anwer is no.



Can you prove you are not a Troll? Do have scientific proof?



> That seems to mean only those who do not disagree with you.



Search the archives you will learn that I have no problem with an argument. You will also see that you are the only person I have ever called a "Troll". There are several threads where the K-lite use was being argued so there is no reason to bring the discussion to this thread where rcb has come to genuinely try to learn something that may improve her growing techniques.

My apologies rcb for this slight interruption in hearing about your plants.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> First, I don't use bark at all. The majority of my plants are in inorganic media, with about 10 still in CHC, they just haven't been repotted since I switched.
> 
> These are the trends I've noticed - although there are a few exceptions to the trends.
> 
> ...



What is the nature of your inorganic potting media, and the chemistry of your basic irrigation water?


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Welcome rcb!
> 
> I think if we can go through facts and your observations we can solve your problem, if in fact it is a problem.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the welcome, and I do appreciate the attention you all have given to my......issue.

I've been using the K-lite since sometime at the beginning of last years growing season. I'm not sure of the date, but Ray might have records? Probably 9 - 12 months ago.

Older - but that might not be the proper description, possibly previously matured, leaves only seem to start turning red during late bud development/blooming. I have not noticed any correlation between new p'bulb growth and older leaves turning red. Ray had asked me this before, so I went and checked carefully.

As I've only been using the K-lite for a year, I don't think any one year old leaves on the Catts at least have turned red and fallen. Second year old growth has. For the Dens, yes on a couple of the evergreen Dens. Obviously the decidous Dens you can't tell. Bulbos mostly 2nd year leaves I've seen turning reddish.

For the Catt plants, it's a range of old to new. Some plants are in 4 inch pots, some are in 10 inch pots. Some plants have 5 - 6 p'bulbs, some have at least 30. I'm discounting seedlings here, as no problems, but no blooms either on them. So I don't have an answer to this question that really covers it accurately.

New growth with K-lite was an obviously larger growth on average. Taller and wider, on already matured plants. Yes I definitely saw a benefit for growth. Another note, bloomings have been definitely on average much better as well. To give an example, my Siam Jade hybrid which typically was giving 3 - 4 flowers per spike, gave me two spikes with 6 flowers, and 1 spike with 7 flowers a couple months ago. Not all plants are that much improved, but an overall average increase is noticeable.

Yes I can get pics of the plants. Today is bad, but I should be able to tomorrow morning, and get them posted up.

Thank you for your attention.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

Rick said:


> What is the nature of your inorganic potting media, and the chemistry of your basic irrigation water?



I use three types of inorganic media, which I choose based on the drying needs of the specific plant.

LECA, lava rock and Turface/Perlite.

When plants are outside they are completely open, therefore the main plain watering is rain. My fertilizing solution is rain water if I have it, or my tap water. Periodically we do have a spell with no rain, and I will water with tap water too.

Tap water here is pretty good. They do not measure TDS at the water plant. But hardness is 30 max. The technician there stated that they rarely actually have a hardness that high though. The water department increases the pH to a target of 7.0, but the techician told me the range is 6.8 - 7.2 in reality.


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 8, 2013)

okay, you mention that the coloring is mostly on catts that are flowering, and they are having more flowers than usual? plus you are seeing a bit more growth; larger and taller. so, the floral structures or growth in general will draw more phosphorus (than before). the general word for hort crop production that i'm assuming is true, is that the phosphorus is 'necessary' for floral production, and generally used more when there are quickly-growing floral structures that have branching or differentiation (like mums with lots of branches and flowers). this is a generalization of course. so, it sounds like your increased floral growth is drawing some phosphorus (if your friend's diagnosis was correct) from the older leaves, which isn't completely bad since there is some there and you have more growth/flowers and all, but it could be that a little more phosphorus may be all you need to alleviate the red leaves. 
it would be nice if you were able to 'test' this somewhat by splitting your collection in half and watering one part with the same and the other with klite and a little more phosphorus and see if there is any difference in coloration. (or you could use a 'bloom booster' lol just kidding, unless there was one that didn't have much k in it)


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> I've been using the K-lite since sometime at the beginning of last years growing season. I'm not sure of the date, but Ray might have records? Probably 9 - 12 months ago.



I will start off with saying that I do not think 9-12 months of reduced phosphorous is enough time to show as a deficiency like this.



> Older - but that might not be the proper description, possibly previously matured, leaves only seem to start turning red during late bud development/blooming. I have not noticed any correlation between new p'bulb growth and older leaves turning red. Ray had asked me this before, so I went and checked carefully.



When you say older do you mean last seasons leaves or from several seasons back? Of the leaves that drop are they always the oldest leaves on the plant?



> As I've only been using the K-lite for a year, I don't think any one year old leaves on the Catts at least have turned red and fallen. Second year old growth has.



When second year growth has, is it on plants with a lot of bulbs or only a few?



> For the Dens, yes on a couple of the evergreen Dens. Obviously the decidous Dens you can't tell. Bulbos mostly 2nd year leaves I've seen turning reddish.



On th Dends... when the leaves fall do all leaves on the stem fall?


For the Catt plants, it's a range of old to new. Some plants are in 4 inch pots, some are in 10 inch pots. Some plants have 5 - 6 p'bulbs, some have at least 30. I'm discounting seedlings here, as no problems, but no blooms either on them. So I don't have an answer to this question that really covers it accurately.

You do have an answer.... It does not effect the immature plants. The leaf loss is only on mature plants and only on growths that have already bloomed or never will bloom. This is pointing to a trend of the plants simply turning off un-needed dependent stems. 



> New growth with K-lite was an obviously larger growth on average. Taller and wider, on already matured plants. Yes I definitely saw a benefit for growth. Another note, bloomings have been definitely on average much better as well. To give an example, my Siam Jade hybrid which typically was giving 3 - 4 flowers per spike, gave me two spikes with 6 flowers, and 1 spike with 7 flowers a couple months ago. Not all plants are that much improved, but an overall average increase is noticeable.



So growth and bloom have improved and what you are concerned about is the loss of older plant parts.

1. I don't think you have a plant health decline problem.
2. I think your plants are growing better and they do not need the old parts any longer. Why waste time sending water to leaves and stems that offer nothing towards the plants reproduction?
3. The red color of the leaves before they fall off may very well be an indication of improved plant health. Certainly we can't assume when a leaf turns red and falls off the plant is not healthy. Many plants leaves turn colors before they are dropped.
4. Plants with rhizomes migrate... the new growth moves away from the old. This happens so the plant can change locations and acquire more nutrients. As the plant moves away from the old growths that have already done their cycle(reproduction) there is no need to keep the old parts active so less nutrients flow the distance and all resources are used in the new reproductive parts that are traveling away. This will happen even when there is plenty of food...the plant uses the food for new growth not to support old used up leaves.



> Yes I can get pics of the plants. Today is bad, but I should be able to tomorrow morning, and get them posted up.
> 
> Thank you for your attention.



Please pictures really help.

I'm just giving my opinion but I don't think you have a problem. What I think is that your plants are growing better. Ask yourself what is better, a pot full of old leaves and 3 small flowers or a pot with fewer leaves and 6 big flowers?
I'm making an educated guess that I' expect someone to disagree with but with what you have said so far I think your red leaves are an indication of improved growth. I would not add more Phosphorous as long as the new growths are good and the bloom is good. 

And as far as the red leaves go.... see them as pretty red leaves saying goodbye and thanking you for the wonderful dinner. 

Now I reserve the right to change my mind after I see your pictures!


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> The water department increases the pH to a target of 7.0, but the techician told me the range is 6.8 - 7.2 in reality.



Need to know how they increase the pH. And specifically if they have changed their process in the last year or at the time you started seeing the leaf drop.

BTW... how long after you started using K-lite did you start seeing the leaf color and drop?


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> I use three types of inorganic media, which I choose based on the drying needs of the specific plant.
> 
> LECA, lava rock and Turface/Perlite.
> 
> ...



I take it you are not using these media in a semi hydro like system. Just a root support? I'm wondering about your media as being a significant player in this. Clay products have a CEC capacity too. If there is sufficient alumina and iron, then I can see phosphate getting tied up by the media (especially if fresh). Activated aluminia is a great medium for phosphate uptake. K lite does have a reduced phosphorus content to start with, so it's not out of reality that P could be getting short changed in these pots. Can you spike a bit of bone meal to some of these pots?


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> okay, you mention that the coloring is mostly on catts that are flowering, and they are having more flowers than usual? plus you are seeing a bit more growth; larger and taller. so, the floral structures or growth in general will draw more phosphorus (than before). the general word for hort crop production that i'm assuming is true, is that the phosphorus is 'necessary' for floral production, and generally used more when there are quickly-growing floral structures that have branching or differentiation (like mums with lots of branches and flowers). this is a generalization of course. so, it sounds like your increased floral growth is drawing some phosphorus (if your friend's diagnosis was correct) from the older leaves, which isn't completely bad since there is some there and you have more growth/flowers and all, but it could be that a little more phosphorus may be all you need to alleviate the red leaves.
> it would be nice if you were able to 'test' this somewhat by splitting your collection in half and watering one part with the same and the other with klite and a little more phosphorus and see if there is any difference in coloration. (or you could use a 'bloom booster' lol just kidding, unless there was one that didn't have much k in it)



This is kind of along the lines I was thinking. Ray had sent me a suggestion of using bone meal, and I could sprinkle a little in 1/2 the pots every month, but it might take a while to see the results. Many of these plants are species and decidedly seasonal bloomers.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

A lot here. But I so appreciate it. I'm adding my answers in the quote text, hopefully this works.



gonewild said:


> I will start off with saying that I do not think 9-12 months of reduced phosphorous is enough time to show as a deficiency like this.
> 
> I understand your point. But remember also that inorganic media + frequent Florida downpours, if there was a situation that would show a deficiency quickly, this would be it.
> 
> ...


----------



## keithrs (Mar 8, 2013)

Please excuses me if this has been answered....
How soon after using k-lite did you get these symptoms? What where you using before?


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Need to know how they increase the pH. And specifically if they have changed their process in the last year or at the time you started seeing the leaf drop.
> 
> BTW... how long after you started using K-lite did you start seeing the leaf color and drop?



I will call and ask. It takes some time to get through to them, so I may not have this answer quickly. 

After one season's growth. Started using K-lite last spring, saw the issue beginning with my few fall bloomers, then really started with my winter bloomers.



Rick said:


> I take it you are not using these media in a semi hydro like system. Just a root support? I'm wondering about your media as being a significant player in this. Clay products have a CEC capacity too. If there is sufficient alumina and iron, then I can see phosphate getting tied up by the media (especially if fresh). Activated aluminia is a great medium for phosphate uptake. K lite does have a reduced phosphorus content to start with, so it's not out of reality that P could be getting short changed in these pots. Can you spike a bit of bone meal to some of these pots?



Correct, I have no orchids in S/H. Ray also questioned the idea of the media being a contributing cause. But these are for the most part common, wouldn't others see it too? Some of the plants have been in their LECA for three years now. Some less than that. I have to admit to being a lazy repotter.

As for bone meal, as I replied to CYCharles, I can get some this weekend, and periodically sprinkle it in some pots. It will need to be refreshed somewhat, I'm not sure how well the pots will hold it in.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

keithrs said:


> Please excuses me if this has been answered....
> How soon after using k-lite did you get these symptoms? What where you using before?



NP, After one growing season. So new growth started last spring on K-lite, matured over the summer, and as the plants came into bloom this past fall and winter I started to see the "issue"

I was using MSU RO. Same concentration, same frequency of fertilizing.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

Phosphorus (P) is the second of the major nutrients listed on fertilizer labels, and like nitrogen is a basic building block of all life, animal and vegetable. But where nitrogen is stored in soil in organic forms and is relatively readily transformed into plant-available forms, phosphorus is stored in unavailable, insoluble mineral forms. Plant-available phosphorus occurs as phosphate, PO4. However, within hours of applying phosphate fertilizer, the phosphate molecules bind to minerals and clay particles in the soil to form unavailable, insoluble phosphorus compounds. These compounds tend to become more tightly bound, and more insoluble, as time progresses, unlike nitrogen compounds which can be broken down by microbes over time. Organic forms of phosphorus can be broken down over time, but once the phosphorus is released from the organic form, it is also quickly bound up in mineral and clay particles. There's a rather short window of opportunity for plants to absorb dissolved phosphorus before it's bound up by the soil and lost to the plants, or lost through leaching and erosion. So, soluble phosphate must be continually added to the soil, either through the breakdown of organic matter, or repeated applications of phosphate. 

This was a funky quote I found in a rose society document. But follows some of the things I've seen in our treatability lab for removing phosphate from waste water with activated alumina and refined clay products.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> NP, After one growing season. So new growth started last spring on K-lite, matured over the summer, and as the plants came into bloom this past fall and winter I started to see the "issue"
> 
> I was using MSU RO. Same concentration, same frequency of fertilizing.[/QUOTE
> 
> Any kelp use?


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

Yes, I use seaweed extract about every other week starting about now until mid summer, with both the MSU and K-lite. I do not use it in late summer or winter.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> Yes, I use seaweed extract about every other week starting about now until mid summer, with both the MSU and K-lite. I do not use it in late summer or winter.



I've been using it year round and weekly, but at a low dose (1/4 tsp/gal).

There are lots of different extracts and concentrations, so may need to look at your particular brand for guidance.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Just to continue the thinking process let's assume it is a phosphorous deficiency.

Why are you the only one seeing the deficiency?
After you ask your water company how they treat the water maybe we will have a clue.

How do you mix your fertilizer?

After mixing the fertilizer do you notice any undissolved solids in the bottom of the container? Any at all?


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/intecol/presentations/125/0240 M Greenway.pdf

This is an interesting paper.

One difference is that the plants and media are kept wet all the time so that retained P can be accessed by the plant after retention.

But one slide in particular shows an impressive amount of long term phosphorus retention by the Al/Fe oxide clay ammendments.

There is even one slide that suggests competition between a plant and the ammendment system for P uptake.

I'm considering a scenario that:
1) Cutting K increased uptake of Ca/Mg with increased new growth/blooming with a higher P demand to keep up (compared to a K suppressed plants).

2) Higher P demand with less available in the fert, compounded by P adsorption in the potting mix got the plants to call up their reserves in old growth.

Adding some P back (as bone meal) could offset the P loss from the potting matrix, but you may consider adding some organic material to the matrix or semi hydro style watering systems.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> Yes, I use seaweed extract about every other week starting about now until mid summer, with both the MSU and K-lite. I do not use it in late summer or winter.



"and as the plants came into bloom this past fall and winter I started to see the "issue"

Maybe a good reason to keep up the kelp year round.


----------



## Ray (Mar 8, 2013)

I'm glad you joined the conversation, Renee.

Rick - the clays in soils tend to be individual flakes, with lots of CEC at the flake edges. In LECA, a lot of vitrification has taken place, greatly lowering it - by orders of magnitude, I suspect.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

Ray said:


> I'm glad you joined the conversation, Renee.
> 
> Rick - the clays in soils tend to be individual flakes, with lots of CEC at the flake edges. In LECA, a lot of vitrification has taken place, greatly lowering it - by orders of magnitude, I suspect.



Also got lava rock and Turface/Perlite

Pre low K, back when I had some of my stuff in baskets with clay balls, I had several problems with hydroton holding onto stuff (at the time K).


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

This presents data on Phosphorous removal by lava and expanded clay...

http://www.constructedwetlands.net/vandeun_SWS08.pdf


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 8, 2013)

How difficult or expensive is it for us to test what our media retain? For instance, I have open bags of lava rock, CHC and LECA that have not been used. I also have media from these bags in orchid pots, in use for several months. 

If I were to soak the unused and used media in RO water from the same source, where would I have to send the soaking water to see the changes in various minerals? Would a university chemistry lab be able to give me the results?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> How difficult or expensive is it for us to test what our media retain? For instance, I have open bags of lava rock, CHC and LECA that have not been used. I also have media from these bags in orchid pots, in use for several months.
> 
> If I were to soak the unused and used media in RO water from the same source, where would I have to send the soaking water to see the changes in various minerals? Would a university chemistry lab be able to give me the results?



You would only get results for the soluble salts of the minerals in the water sample. the CEC bound elements will stay bound to the particles.

You would have to crush the media and have soil analysis tests done directly to the solids.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't think the CEC of orchid media has a lot of influence on the plants. There is so little root surface in contact with media that the actual capacity held in the media is not going to be accessible to the orchid plants. For CE to happen roots must contact soil and orchid root structures just don't have that much capacity. 
That is why we rely on frequent liquid fertilizer applications.

On the other hand the media may trap nutrients by it's CEC and keep them away from the orchids.
That is why we rely on frequent liquid fertilizer applications.


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> This presents data on Phosphorous removal by lava and expanded clay...
> 
> http://www.constructedwetlands.net/vandeun_SWS08.pdf



This presentation doesn't take the media to the point of saturation with P and N. If we wanted to pre-saturate our media so that it wouldn't deplete the nutrients from the fertilizer, what would it take? And how would we know that it was saturated? 

Does everyone pre-soak media in fertilizer or plain water?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> If we wanted to pre-saturate our media so that it wouldn't deplete the nutrients from the fertilizer, what would it take? And how would we know that it was saturated?



That is not the direction you want to go. When you work with nutrients at high levels it is easy to crash. The approach would to be to use a media that has zero CEC and no ability to hold nutrients. Then you know what you applied is what there is. But then you have stepped into hydroponics or simi-hydro.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Another question for rcb........

Do you have algae growing in your pots, on your pots or on your media or on the plant roots??


----------



## Stone (Mar 8, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> > you are seeing a bit more growth; larger and taller. so, the floral structures or growth in general will draw more phosphorus (than before). the general word for hort crop production that i'm assuming is true, is that the phosphorus is 'necessary' for floral production, and generally used more when there are quickly-growing floral structures that have branching or differentiation (like mums with lots of branches and flowers).
> 
> 
> Flowers typically have the same or LESS P than plant tops (leaves)
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Stone said:


> cnycharles said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an example of a fuchsia adequately supplied with all nutrients:
> ...


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

Rick said:


> I've been using it year round and weekly, but at a low dose (1/4 tsp/gal).
> 
> There are lots of different extracts and concentrations, so may need to look at your particular brand for guidance.



I first used Maxigrow's last season used Kepak.



gonewild said:


> Just to continue the thinking process let's assume it is a phosphorous deficiency.
> 
> Why are you the only one seeing the deficiency?
> After you ask your water company how they treat the water maybe we will have a clue.
> ...



As for why only me? I don't know. Maybe I'm special, mom always told me that. :rollhappy: Or maybe because my conditions are extreme compared to most others? Or maybe others may be seeing a potential problem, but aren't willing to say so? I don't know the answer.

I mix my fertilizer by dissolving in 1 gallon warm water, then diluting to 20 l at a time. Yes I check for undissolved solids, actually every time. The warm water goes into a clear 1 gallon container, that I swish up, let set, then check for solids before adding to my sprayer, which is then filled to the 20 l with water. My background is polymer chemistry, but I do remember enough of inorganic chemistry to look for that. Not much else though.



Rick said:


> http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/intecol/presentations/125/0240 M Greenway.pdf
> 
> This is an interesting paper.
> 
> ...



I will eventually find out if adding back P helps. But it's going to take a while. I'm not ready to give up on K-lite completely. I have seen some positive benefits to it. I think I just need to find the right balance for my conditions.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Another question for rcb........
> 
> Do you have algae growing in your pots, on your pots or on your media or on the plant roots??



Yes, and btw, you can call me Renee. Not only do I, but I have noticed the moss growth has really taken off the last year. I mean really taken on, both on mounts and on top of LECA. I do have really high humidity, but still.....


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> I first used Maxigrow's last season used Kepak.
> 
> I mix my fertilizer by dissolving in 1 gallon warm water, then diluting to 20 l at a time. Yes I check for undissolved solids, actually every time. The warm water goes into a clear 1 gallon container, that I swish up, let set, then check for solids before adding to my sprayer, which is then filled to the 20 l with water. My background is polymer chemistry, but I do remember enough of inorganic chemistry to look for that. Not much else though.



OK. But you did not say if during the process there are any solids settled out that don't dissolve or may be a precipitate. Even a small deposit could account for a high amount of the "missing" Phosphorous.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> Yes, and btw, you can call me Renee. Not only do I, but I have noticed the moss growth has really taken off the last year. I mean really taken on, both on mounts and on top of LECA. I do have really high humidity, but still.....



There is a very good chance the algae is consuming the Phosphorous.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

Rick said:


> "and as the plants came into bloom this past fall and winter I started to see the "issue"
> 
> Maybe a good reason to keep up the kelp year round.



My logic ?? on why only using kelp for part of the year - my wintertime conditions are not perfect, therefore I do not want new p'bulbs starting in fall/winter. Most of my plants are species, which theoretically should have somewhat defined growth/bloom/sometime rest stages. I thought giving them kelp year round could interrupt their natural stages.

I, of course, could be wrong in my thinking. But this was my reasoning for only supplying kelp in spring/early summer. Your thoughts? 

One other thing to point out, my monopodials, which again theoretically grow year round? I'm not seeing problems with.


----------



## rcb (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> OK. But you did not say if during the process there are any solids settled out that don't dissolve or may be a precipitate. Even a small deposit could account for a high amount of the "missing" Phosphorous.



Sorry, No not solids settling in the bottom of the container that I mix my concentrate in. Could there be some suspended? Yes, but I have let my concentrate set for up to a day, and not see any solids settled.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> Sorry, No not solids settling in the bottom of the container that I mix my concentrate in. Could there be some suspended? Yes, but I have let my concentrate set for up to a day, and not see any solids settled.



OK just want to make sure we can eliminate this as a loss of P.


----------



## Stone (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> There is a very good chance the algae is consuming the Phosphorous.



Now Lance....How much P could a bit of algae on top of a pot consume?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Stone said:


> Now Lance....How much P could a bit of algae on top of a pot consume?



Perhaps a lot.

Chances are the roots are covered in algae as well a that "bit on top".

I think Algae is an important waste water management tool to remove Phosphorous from water.

On the other hand an increase in algae growth is an indication of high P levels. 

oke:
So if Renee has plants showing signs of low Phosphorous and the algae is growing well one might think that the algae is eating the P before it reaches the plant roots.
OR
If the algae is growing well that is a sign that the the media and fertilizer have plenty of Phosphorous and Renee's problem is not a shortage of P.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Stone said:


> Now Lance....How much P could a bit of algae on top of a pot consume?



Algae is 89.5% Phosphorous.
How many grams of algae is in one pot?
How much algae can one gallon of K-lite feed?
Algae will grab the P before the orchid roots have a chance.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> Yes, and btw, you can call me Renee. Not only do I, but I have noticed the moss growth has really taken off the last year. I mean really taken on, both on mounts and on top of LECA. I do have really high humidity, but still.....



Renee

I generally find the presence of moss growth a positive indicator with orchids too.


----------



## Stone (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > How many grams of algae is in one pot?
> 
> 
> Lets see..........If you dry it..... I would say 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002 gms?:


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see..........If you dry it..... I would say 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002 gms?:
> ...


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

rcb said:


> Most of my plants are species, which theoretically should have somewhat defined growth/bloom/sometime rest stages. I thought giving them kelp year round could interrupt their natural stages.
> 
> I, of course, could be wrong in my thinking. But this was my reasoning for only supplying kelp in spring/early summer. Your thoughts?
> 
> One other thing to point out, my monopodials, which again theoretically grow year round? I'm not seeing problems with.



About 99% of my plants are species too, although my collection is heavier in slippers, bulbos, and phalaes (only maybe a dozen Catts/Dendro/Epi total). I don't try to drive cycles via water and feeding, but let the light/temp fluctuations do that. Granted I do reduce feeding/watering some in the winter since plant metabolism is generally slower with less light and heat. So no point in burying the plant in a lot of chemical it can't use. 

I use Seaplex kelp extract. The percentage of cytokinins/auxin is only a percent or so, but the amount of other usable organics (for things like chelating metals) and backup Ca/Mg and micros is pretty decent. It even has a bit of K in it too. The recommended hydroponic feeding rate is 7-10ml/gal that can be reapplied once a week. I'm only feeding 1ml/gal. So I doubt I'm really hormonally pushing plants into odd seasons by this light dose of kelp. Anyway they appear to be putting up growths and flowers the same time each year regardless.

My monopodials (slippers and phalaes) have fast, slow, and bloom seasons too. So I don't think that is a legitimate distinction. I think a better way to look at this is CAM versus C3 metabolism (which is still not strict categories since some species can switch depending on environmental conditions at the time. But a big chunk of CAM orchids are Catts, which imparts drought resistance through mechanisms besides just opening pores at night. Leaf drop is also a means of saving water, and avoiding sun damage.

Are you also seeing an increase in root production? You are using a media that is pretty bad on holding water, and you may have been worried about root rot issues/restricting water. I have noticed that since reducing K, not only can I water more without root rot, but the more I water the more the plants/roots grow. (even shoe leather Catts are 85-90% water).

Stone (down in Australia) was having a very hot summer (this past winter for us) and remarked that he's been setting his plants in trays of water (HERESY!!), and counter to worries of root rot, is getting massive growth.

So maybe this still all just goes back to water consumption rather than nutrient deprivation.


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 8, 2013)

speaking of algae, I just heard on the radio today that there is a kind of algae that has pigment spots that act just like eyes... just when you think you've heard everything!


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> speaking of algae, I just heard on the radio today that there is a kind of algae that has pigment spots that act just like eyes... just when you think you've heard everything!




I work with algae that crawl, glide, wiggle, and squirm. It's crazy:wink:


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

How are we supposed to kill algae if it's looking at us?


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> Are you also seeing an increase in root production? You are using a media that is pretty bad on holding water, and you may have been worried about root rot issues/restricting water. I have noticed that since reducing K, not only can I water more without root rot, but the more I water the more the plants/roots grow. (even shoe leather Catts are 85-90% water).
> 
> Stone (down in Australia) was having a very hot summer (this past winter for us) and remarked that he's been setting his plants in trays of water (HERESY!!), and counter to worries of root rot, is getting massive growth.
> 
> So maybe this still all just goes back to water consumption rather than nutrient deprivation.



I have not noticed a difference in root production since switching from MSU to K-lite. But it would be hard, as root production here is simply pretty crazy. When the sun comes up, and I go to get pics, I'll snap one of an average root area on my Catts as well.

As for water comsumption being the "cause" I don't ever like to say something isn't possible, but I do think it's unlikely. My potted plants get watered quite often, ie in summer 5 - 6 times a week. This is one of the many reasons I have switched to inorganic media. Less watering of course in the wintertime. But they do have dew almost every morning in the winter in addition to the waterings Mother Nature and I give them. If it was lack of water availability, I would think I'd see other symptoms as well.

And waterings haven't changed since I switched fertilizers.


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

Got the pics this morning.

This plant is Caulaelia Mizoguchi, currently in bloom with 3 spikes. Total 7 p'bulbs, 3 blooming, 3 loosing leaves, and one previously bloomed p'bulb so far staying green. None of these 7 p'bubs are more than 3 years old.







This is Guarianthe aurian.... don't make me spell it  This is one of those exceptions it is not currently in bloom. (Mine bloom later here) A lot of p'bulbs, maybe 30+, of which in the past month, at least 10 have done this. You can see a clearly defined line, I want to comment, there is no shade/sun line on this leaf to cause that.






Now these next two are Hoyas which are also epiphytes, and which I am also seeing leaf issues with. They get the exact same treatment as the orchids. I show these because its a good comparison. This is not light related. These two are very closely related species, growing beside each other. The first on is in LECA, the second one is still in an organic media. Same watering, same light, same temps, same fertilizing rate and frequency.











And two root photos, two different plants that I choose to try and show the average out there. The first one, it's been about three years in it's current pot, the second one was repotted last summer.


----------



## Erythrone (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Algae is 89.5% Phosphorous.



Are you sure of this, Lance?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Erythrone said:


> Are you sure of this, Lance?



That's what I read in several different studies. I'm sure it must vary from specie to specie.
But for the subject of this thread after seeing the pictures it does not look like Renee has much algae growing in her pots.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Renee the pictures help a lot. I was hoping to see some pictures of the entire plant that shows the new growth as well as the old.
It is hard to get a feeling of the extent of the leaf drop only seeing the single leaves. Can you also post full plant pictures?

Your Hoya leaves definitely show deficiencies.

I recall that you are using the same rate of K-lite as you were MSU but I don't remember hearing what that rate is. Can you please tell again what strength you are mixing your fertilizer mix and how often yo apply it? 

You may simply need to increase the amount of fertilizer you are applying.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


>



Is this what you are describing as yellow color changing to red?


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I don't think the CEC of orchid media has a lot of influence on the plants. There is so little root surface in contact with media that the actual capacity held in the media is not going to be accessible to the orchid plants. For CE to happen roots must contact soil and orchid root structures just don't have that much capacity.
> That is why we rely on frequent liquid fertilizer applications.
> 
> On the other hand the media may trap nutrients by it's CEC and keep them away from the orchids.
> That is why we rely on frequent liquid fertilizer applications.


Lance - first, thanks for posting that link.

Not only may the medium trap nutrients and (the favorite word in the country at the moment) _sequester_ them, but to Rick's point about K - it may concentrate them to the point of becoming toxic.


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I recall that you are using the same rate of K-lite as you were MSU but I don't remember hearing what that rate is. Can you please tell again what strength you are mixing your fertilizer mix and how often yo apply it?
> 
> You may simply need to increase the amount of fertilizer you are applying.



I'm at 100ppm N, applying twice a week during the growth season.

I will get you more pics, but not until late today - kid playing doubleheader here soon. Plus it's Ctsm repotting day.

And yes, but it actually starts red, then goes to yellow. Weird but it runs from the base of the leaf out. Usually a leaf dies off apex down, but I've got it going backwards here. And something else I thought about this morning. Two exceptions in the Catts, that bloomed but didn't show leaf drop are both Catts that bloom on partially matured p'bulbs. So I rarely get a big flush of blooms, but a spike here, a spike later and so on. And these are the only two Catts that bloom that way for me.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2013)

The red edges on the hoya definitely shows K deficiency, but I wonder about the overall level of feeding.

2x/week at 100 ppm may sound reasonable, but if you factor in 3 or 4 additional days where they are being flushed - probably pretty thoroughly - with rainwater, I really have to wonder how much overall nutrition the plants are getting?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Ray said:


> The red edges on the hoya definitely shows K deficiency, but I wonder about the overall level of feeding.
> 
> 2x/week at 100 ppm may sound reasonable, but if you factor in 3 or 4 additional days where they are being flushed - probably pretty thoroughly - with rainwater, I really have to wonder how much overall nutrition the plants are getting?



That is exactly were I was heading Ray. 
I think the amount of water between fertilizing is flushing out all the nutrients. During the growth season I would be applying 100ppm with every irrigation. And in reality I would want the rainwater to be included.

Assume Renee applies fertilizer twice during the week but it rains every afternoon. How much nutrition did the plants actually get? Maybe none.


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

Ray understand, but that fertilizing regime worked for MSU.

I guess there has been a lot iver the last day on why, but I also want to talk about how to fix it.

So I'm going to get some bone meal for the potted ones. Is there any possible negatives I should look for?

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to fertilize more frequently, I can increase the concentration tho.

And another option is to go back to MSU. I would rather not do that, as I have seen benefits with the K lite, but it is an option.


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> That is exactly were I was heading Ray.
> I think the amount of water between fertilizing is flushing out all the nutrients. During the growth season I would be applying 100ppm with every irrigation. And in reality I would want the rainwater to be included.
> 
> Assume Renee applies fertilizer twice during the week but it rains every afternoon. How much nutrition did the plants actually get? Maybe none.



It doesn't rain every afternoon, a couple times a week usually, sometimes more as much as 4 times a week.. And I tend to fertilize on non raining days, although it does happen a rain storm will happen after I fertilize. Murphy's law you know.

But again that is not any different from when I used MSU.

So would it be correct to say that due to my conditions, I need a higher level of P?, of all? Nutrients?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Ray said:


> Lance - first, thanks for posting that link.
> 
> Not only may the medium trap nutrients and (the favorite word in the country at the moment) _sequester_ them, but to Rick's point about K - it may concentrate them to the point of becoming toxic.



Yes. And the "toxic" concept of the media is demonstrated by the increase in roots people are reporting using K-lite. It is not that K-lite is growing more roots it is that the CEC bound nutrients during the old fertilizer regime were inhibiting root growth.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 9, 2013)

How do you apply fert? Injector/proportioner? Mister? Water breaker? Mix in tank?

Have you tested the irrigation water with a pH/PPM meter? If so, what readings are you getting?


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

keithrs said:


> How do you apply fert? Injector/proportioner? Mister? Water breaker? Mix in tank?
> 
> Have you tested the irrigation water with a pH/PPM meter? If so, what readings are you getting?



I make the concentrate, make sure it's totally dissolved, add in my 20l sprayer and add the water. When I fertilizer I totally saturate. I start at one end, go all through them, and then do a second time. I do not water first.

I have not tested pH myself in a while. When I first switched to MSU RO I did use strips to test. It came in low 6ish over about a month.

Since then I just call the water department every few months to see where the pH is coming in. When I use rain water I have no idea what it is.

I have never tested TDS.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> It doesn't rain every afternoon, a couple times a week. And I tend to fertilize on non raining days, although it does happen a rain storm will happen after I fertilize. Murphy's law you know.
> 
> But again that is not any different from when I used MSU.
> 
> So would it be correct to say that due to my conditions, I need a higher level of P?, of all? Nutrients?



I am going to say all nutrients. 
But first we need to see pictures of the whole plant.

I don't think adding more P will correct the problem. It may disguise the problem and make things look a little better but that should not be waht you want.
You want to apply every nutrient in the optimum amounts.
The K-lite concept is new so to correct your problem we need to use logic.

Most (all?) other users of K-lite are reporting very good growth with the K-lite nutrient ratio. 
So we can assume that the ratio of nutrients is good in K-lite.
You should not need to change the ratio by adding more P.
The differing factor in your culture is the amount of extra rainfall that flushes your media more than other growers.

The simple solution for you is to increase the strength of the K-lite you are applying without changing the ratio by adding more P.

But you have to realize this process we are talking through is an examination and the best medicine can't be prescribed until the diagnosis is complete.
We still might learn that the chemical makeup of your water is causing problems with P, if that is the case then adding P is correct. But if the problem is a general shortage of all nutrients then adding P only makes things worse. 

If I were you I would mix up a batch of K-lite at 2x strength and apply to a few plants to see what happens (it won't hurt them).


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> I make the concentrate, make sure it's totally dissolved, add in my 20l sprayer and add the water. When I fertilizer I totally saturate. I start at one end, go all through them, and then do a second time. I do not water first.
> 
> I have not tested pH myself in a while. When I first switched to MSU RO I did use strips to test. It came in low 6ish over about a month.
> 
> ...



1.When you fertilize with the sprayer how many gallons of water do you use?
2.How many plants do you water?
3.Using #1 and #2 we need to know how much fertilizer is actually applied to each plant. 

How much dry powder fertilizer actually goes on a plant in a week?

Are you making your concentrate using the same measure of K-lite as you did with MSU? (same spoonfuls per gallon).


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> 1.When you fertilize with the sprayer how many gallons of water do you use?
> 2.How many plants do you water?
> 3.Using #1 and #2 we need to know how much fertilizer is actually applied to each plant.
> 
> ...



Perfect timing, I just got done fertilizing the outside plants. 

For the outside plants, this morning I used 40l. There are about 300 plants outside right now I guess - both orchids and some of my cold tolerant Hoyas. 

Same PPM, I dont remember the actual tsp/gallon that came out to, as when I was using MSU I had a two gallon spray, and now have a 20l sprayer.

But I don't think these answers will get what you want, they don't account for overspray and drippage. Especially since I have Hoyas mixed in, the second time I get the whole plant. The Hoyas grow better if the whole plant is sprayed - my orchids don't seem to care, so I do it.

So first spray is directed in the pots, second spray is directed in the pots and then the whole plant gets a spray down - actually a bench at a time.

What I did, before I began I grabbed a Catt hybrid in a 5 inch pot in LECA. So an average size one for me. 

Weight was 426g

I let it drip for about 10 min, weight then was 482g

After the second spraying and after dripping for 10 min weight was 497g.

I think these numbers will get you closer to what you are calculating?

ok - really need to get to my son's game. And I've got a Ctsm mess all over my kitchen, so I'll be away for a while now. Thank you.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> What I did, before I began I grabbed a Catt hybrid in a 5 inch pot in LECA. So an average size one for me.
> 
> Weight was 426g
> 
> ...



497g-426g = 71 grams of nutrient water within possible plant reach.

71g x .0001 (%N at 100ppm) = .0071g Nitrogen applied.
71 g x .0000083 (%P at 8.3ppm) = .0005893g Phosphorous applied.

Not very much, the plant must consume itself.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2013)

I was on that same thought path, Lance. This strike me as an overall starvation diet.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 9, 2013)

I use about 15 gal.(about 56 liters) to water the 70 or so plants I have daily(while plants are growing) with a TDS of about 150. About 130 of that is fertilizer. Lately I have gone down to 100 TDS.

You may want to try osmocote on your plants. I think Ray knows how to make pellet forms. Maybe he can make some k-lite "osmocote".


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

Lance and Ray, If there is not enough overall fertilizer, then why did MSU work? The plants had been growing under these conditions since 2009. 

Or do you mean that with K lite the growth and blooming is more, so the plant needs more nutrients than previously?

Keithrs, I have used Osmocote in the past, I had serious issues with it, much much worse than what I have now.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> Lance and Ray, If there is not enough overall fertilizer, then why did MSU work? The plants had been growing under these conditions since 2009.



That is a good question and I am thinking about it. There are a lot of possibles to consider.



> Or do you mean that with K lite the growth and blooming is more, so the plant needs more nutrients than previously?



That would be a simple easy explanation but we can do better.



> Keithrs, I have used Osmocote in the past, I had serious issues with it, much much worse than what I have now.



We had problems with Osmocote also, but that was years ago when it was new. Maybe they have fixed the problem but at the time the membrane did not release all of the nutrients.


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

keithrs said:


> I use about 15 gal.(about 56 liters) to water the 70 or so plants



Just on a water availability basis Renee puts about 130 mls of water into a pot, which retains about 1/2 (70ml) for the short term (since it probably evaporates out rather than getting consumed by the plant). Add any selective CEC storage and wash out, then this media (which I think is a minority choice for low K users at this point...outside of semi-hydro use) could definitely set up some starvation issues that I don't see in my mounted plants.

Keith is applying about 800ml per plant daily.

The expanded clay products are really made for SH based systems where standing water (with nutrients) is available constantly.

Maybe if the pots were plugged, or set into saucers to create a reservoir she would get much longer fert exposure (and obvious less waste).

I don't think increasing the dose will help that much except in pots with extreme root fill. The waste rate is very high.

But short of turning the system semi hydro, I think increased frequency (with even lower fert doses) like Keith suggested is the way to go.


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild;4104
The simple solution for you is to increase the strength of the K-lite you are applying without changing the ratio by adding more P.
But you have to realize this process we are talking through is an examination and the best medicine can't be prescribed until the diagnosis is complete.
We still might learn that the chemical makeup of your water is causing problems with P said:


> The plant that I weighed this morning is one that just started a spike, and just has the very beginning of reddish edges to the leaves. I can pull that one and a couple others that should be spiking soon and double the concentration to see what happens. Not very scientific, but I guess its something. I didnt get pics this afternoon, sorry family time interfered, but I will in the morning.
> 
> And I will get the answets from my water department also.
> 
> Again thank you for your attention.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> Not very scientific, but I guess its something.



It is very scientific... experiment.


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> Just on a water availability basis Renee puts about 130 mls of water into a pot, which retains about 1/2 (70ml) for the short term (since it probably evaporates out rather than getting consumed by the plant). Add any selective CEC storage and wash out, then this media (which I think is a minority choice for low K users at this point...outside of semi-hydro use) could definitely set up some starvation issues that I don't see in my mounted plants.
> 
> Keith is applying about 800ml per plant daily.
> 
> ...




Or I can try this. The problem becomes avoiding rainfall, managing dry times and I travel for work each week. I have avoided back to back days if fertilizing, for example if I fertilize on a Friday, I avoided fertilizing again before Monday. So I could fertilize more often in a row.

I will be moving in early summer which will help with my fertilizing frequency.

Going back to organic media isnt an option for me.


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

Ray said:


> The red edges on the hoya definitely shows K deficiency, but I wonder about the overall level of feeding.



http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/SCM-10.pdf

Ray the above document is comparable to the symptoms listed on the Antec site for orchids. Purple-red margins in old leaves is generally indicative of low P (rather than K). Low K generally produces yellowing at margins/tips followed by necrosis (black/burnt look).

Also Renee presented two hoya pics side by side which I think are particularly instructive. The one is leca is showing P deficiency, but the one in "organic media" is looking fine. Something very weird about this application of leca?!?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> I don't think increasing the dose will help that much except in pots with extreme root fill. The waste rate is very high.
> 
> But short of turning the system semi hydro, I think increased frequency (with even lower fert doses) like Keith suggested is the way to go.



Renee has said she will not be able to increase the frequency of application.
Growing in the leca medias will require more nutrient waste but probably not a big cost factor.
So the solution is to increase the dose to bring nutrient levels closer to those showing good results.

I don't have my EC meter here to test a sample solution so maybe someone else can.
I would bring the total fertilizer up to at least 500ppm to correct the deficiency. 
This may seem high but considering the total volume of water her plants receive I think it will work.

So how many tsp per gallon of K-lite would make a 500ppm solution?


----------



## rcb (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Renee has said she will not be able to increase the frequency of application.
> Growing in the leca medias will require more nutrient waste but probably not a big cost factor.
> So the solution is to increase the dose to bring nutrient levels closer to those showing good results.
> 
> ...



Well that is easy math, i can just multiply by 5 

Isnt that a bit extreme? Should I try 250 ppm first?


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

Lance

I think there is something about the Leca application that really is causing a specific P shortage.

As noted she never developed N or K starvation issues with MSU, so I don't think it is a good idea to pump the N up 5 times more (400ppm more N) than she ever used in the past just to get another 40 ppm of P.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> Or I can try this. The problem becomes avoiding rainfall, managing dry times and I travel for work each week. I have avoided back to back days if fertilizing, for example if I fertilize on a Friday, I avoided fertilizing again before Monday. So I could fertilize more often in a row.



What you need is the fertilizer applied with each watering. Because of the rain this is not possible. So the only thing you can actually do is to increase the dose to compensate. You can apply a much stronger dose since you know the rains will dilute it. The K-lite rates are based on the nutrients staying in the pots and yours are passing through. 

Increasing the dose will be somewhat like applying a supplement like bone meal. It will add more P that will solve the P shortage. But your plants are short on all nutrients. So increase the dose of K-lite without adding the dry fertilizers. This will allow you to benefit from the K-lite ratio that is showing good results. All you need to do is get the nutrient levels up to where you thought they were in the first place.

At 500ppm nutrients in the water you will not "burn" the plants. Applying this rate at your current twice weekly will probably bring the average level close to what you thought you were getting with the 100ppmN dose.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> Lance
> 
> I think there is something about the Leca application that really is causing a specific P shortage.
> 
> As noted she never developed N or K starvation issues with MSU, so I don't think it is a good idea to pump the N up 5 times more than she ever used in the past just to get another 30 ppm of P.



Yes that is my thought. Keep the K-lite ratio and adjust the dose up until it works. It will effectivly be the same dose you are applying to your plants.


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

I'd just bone meal it.n But it can be a bit hard to figure what's going on from generic top dress of solids.

Or (once I do the math) add some bone meal to the liquid kelp extract, and add that to the fert mix to get that to the plants P dose back up to 50ppm on a low regular kelp dose.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> Well that is easy math, i can just multiply by 5



No, not that simple. Multiplying by 5 brings the N level up to 500. We want the total to be 500 including P and K and Ca and Mg and any other salts in k-lite.
Probably more like 3 or 4 times? 



> Isnt that a bit extreme? Should I try 250 ppm first?



No it is not extreme. Consider all the rain and water that flush your media.
Your plants are not especially fertilizer sensitive like Paphs or Phrags they will tolerate very strong doses. Applying Nutrient solutions at 500ppm is common in commercial production. But remember I not talking about 500ppm of N, I am talking about 500ppm total nutrients.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> I'd just bone meal it.n But it can be a bit hard to figure what's going on from generic top dress of solids.
> 
> Or (once I do the math) add some bone meal to the liquid kelp extract, and add that to the fert mix to get that to the plants P dose back up to 50ppm on a low regular kelp dose.



Yes but look at the small amount of N that the plants actually are getting.


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Yes that is my thought. Keep the K-lite ratio and adjust the dose up until it works. It will effectivly be the same dose you are applying to your plants.



I'm not sure I follow, but I guess this assumes that the waste and plant uptake rate are proportionately even across all nutrients in the mix.

The evidence doesn't seem to support this since the symptoms appear to be P deficiency and not universal (otherwise old MSU would have failed too).


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Yes but look at the small amount of N that the plants actually are getting.



The numbers don't support the theory of how much we think the plant should be getting. They got the same N with MSU and did fine.


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Yes but look at the small amount of N that the plants actually are getting.



Kind of goes back to all those conversations we had about how much orchids just don't get in the rainforest overall!


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> But remember I not talking about 500ppm of N, I am talking about 500ppm total nutrients.



Well for K lite if you feed at 100ppm N then you have about 250ppm total.

So about 2 X the normal dose.


----------



## Rick (Mar 9, 2013)

Just pulled the specs and did the math. Its 225ppm total for 100ppm N

So 2X is 450ppm total

Every 100ppm N of K lite will give you 8.3ppm P

MSU at 100 ppm N gave 50ppm P

So it seems like the answer is somewhere between 8.3 and 50. (But a max factor of about 4X)

But we don't know if 50 ppm p is excess or just enough. Going incrementally 8.3ppm at a time to get back to 50 while at the same time adding a bunch of other stuff that's either wasted or will become a problem seems a shame. Back to the old shotgun approach.

Also new growth, and moss growth is good. Which seems like most everything else reduced by K lite (mostly K) is good. So why bump that back up, rather than just working around the Leca/phosphorus issue?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> I'm not sure I follow, but I guess this assumes that the waste and plant uptake rate are proportionately even across all nutrients in the mix.
> 
> The evidence doesn't seem to support this since the symptoms appear to be P deficiency and not universal (otherwise old MSU would have failed too).



Yes it assumes the loss is proportional. It has to be.

From the leaf picture Renee posted I see a general nutrient shortage including N. The leaves should be darker green, but that is why I want to see whole plant pictures.

The old MSU did not fail totally because the ratios were different. Renee has said her new growth is better now than with the old MSU. That fact alone means that actually the old MSU had failed. But because the NPKCAMg ratios were what they were the plants seemed to be in balance...but they were not or they would have been growing growth like the K-lite is producing how. You should read your article! 

The only part about the K-lite methods I have been not sure about was the low doses. Now I know why. I water a lot more than most people and i apply more fertilizer than most people. Now Renee is here and she waters more than most people and the low dose is not working. It is a simple solution to increase the dose but keep the ratio. In actuality Renee will be supplying her plants with the same nutrients you apply to yours, She will just uses more water and fertilizer to do it. This is part of the learning curve where different environments need to be considered.

I believe the K-lite ratio is correct and the target nutrient levels are correct. Each grower must figure out how to hit the target levels.


----------



## Stone (Mar 9, 2013)

rcb said:


> Got the pics this morning.
> 
> This plant is Caulaelia Mizoguchi, currently in bloom with 3 spikes. Total 7 p'bulbs, 3 blooming, 3 loosing leaves, and one previously bloomed p'bulb so far staying green. None of these 7 p'bubs are more than 3 years old.
> 
> ...



Not sure about the orchids but the hoyas have Mg deficiency guarranteed. Maybe also some N issue as well? What is your mix pH? and do you use any Ammonium or Urea?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> The numbers don't support the theory of how much we think the plant should be getting. They got the same N with MSU and did fine.



No they only looked like they were doing fine with the old ratios. The same N was influenced by the higher K and P and lower Ca and Mg. Now K-lite is raising the bar on what :"fine" is.

Renee says her new growth is better now. That means the new ratios are better and that in turn means the MSU ratio and growth was not "fine". I just think she is not getting the same amount of minerals to her plants as people who water less.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> Kind of goes back to all those conversations we had about how much orchids just don't get in the rainforest overall!



Renee wants to win cultural awards not grow rainforest plants!


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Just pulled the specs and did the math. Its 225ppm total for 100ppm N
> 
> So 2X is 450ppm total
> 
> ...



I'm not convinced we are seeing a P shortage due to the ratio. Since Renee is the only one reporting it that tells us it has something to do with her environment. it seems obvious to me the volume of water that her plants get is dropping the total nutrient dose too low. Not just the P.

Going up slowly is one way but as we go slowly she looses her leaves. My approach would be to feed maximum to stop starvation and then go down slowly until the problem reoccurs. Then go back up a notch and you have the correct application rate.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Yes it assumes the loss is proportional. It has to be.
> 
> From the leaf picture Renee posted I see a general nutrient shortage including N. The leaves should be darker green, but that is why I want to see whole plant pictures.
> You should read your article!
> ...



The reason we changed the ratios in for K lite was because uptake is not proportional in plants, and the photo comparison between the hoyas also indicates that the different media are not supporting the fertilizer proportionately. Also I believe she said that mounted orchids (not in Leca) are fine.

Definitely a learning curve, I'll admit that. 

I guess I'm more interested in figuring out the mysteries of Leca rather than conducting a tolerance test of K lite.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Just pulled the specs and did the math. Its 225ppm total for 100ppm N
> 
> So 2X is 450ppm total



This is the dose... double what Renee was using. Apply often to begin, everyday is not too often to start the plants healing.




> Also new growth, and moss growth is good. Which seems like most everything else reduced by K lite (mostly K) is good. So why bump that back up, rather than just working around the Leca/phosphorus issue?



Not bumping anything back up. Increasing the dose maintains the low ratio. Adding minerals to work around the phosphorous issue will change what other growers are having good results with. First step is to apply the correct amount.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Stone said:


> Not sure about the orchids but the hoyas have Mg deficiency guarranteed. Maybe also some N issue as well? What is your mix pH? and do you use any Ammonium or Urea?



That is what I see as well. That justifies increasing the amount of fertilizer applied.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

Stone said:


> Not sure about the orchids but the hoyas have Mg deficiency guarranteed. Maybe also some N issue as well? What is your mix pH? and do you use any Ammonium or Urea?



No I use nothing on my plants but K- lite and a couple applications a year of the pesticide Sevin. also, we are getting into spring here, so the sun is getting stronger, I haven't yet moved the plants to their more protected shade spots. So some of what you are seeing there is a bit too much sun.



gonewild said:


> Renee wants to win cultural awards not grow rainforest plants!



Someday...... 



Rick said:


> The reason we changed the ratios in for K lite was because uptake is not proportional in plants, and the photo comparison between the hoyas also indicates that the different media are not supporting the fertilizer proportionately. Also I believe she said that mounted orchids (not in Leca) are fine.
> 
> Definitely a learning curve, I'll admit that.
> 
> I guess I'm more interested in figuring out the mysteries of Leca rather than conducting a tolerance test of K lite.



If it helps, I haven't exclusively used one type of LECA. I have plants in Prime Agra, Hydroton and another brand I have gotten that I can't remember right now. also don't forget Lava rock and Turface.

Also, a lot of the recent theories are related to one measurement from this morning. Let me pick a few more pots tomorrow morning and do the same weighing. Maybe I picked an outlier? We will see.

And correct, vast majority of my mounted plants are showing no issues. 1 orchid and two mounted Hoyas are the only ones. Most of them are mounted on cedar planks, with a little spag at the roots.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> My approach would be to feed maximum to stop starvation and then go down slowly until the problem reoccurs. Then go back up a notch and you have the correct application rate.



Won't that take about 5 years to figure out? She's only loosing leaves on old growths. So to get enough bloomed out growths with leaves would take about 3-5 years wouldn't it?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Also I believe she said that mounted orchids (not in Leca) are fine.



The material they are mounted on probably retains nutrients by absorption and they remain where the plants get a little each time it rains. In the leca two things happen. 1. most nutrients wash through with the first rain. 2. CEC ties up some nutrients. The solution to 1 and 2 is to apply more nutrients.



> Definitely a learning curve, I'll admit that.


:clap:



> I guess I'm more interested in figuring out the mysteries of Leca rather than conducting a tolerance test of K lite.



The two have collided.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> And correct, vast majority of my mounted plants are showing no issues. 1 orchid and two mounted Hoyas are the only ones. Most of them are mounted on cedar planks, with a little spag at the roots.



Does this mean you only have 3 mounted plants?

What is the possibility of using trays or plugs to keep a reservoir of fert in your pots for an extended period?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Won't that take about 5 years to figure out? She's only loosing leaves on old growths. So to get enough bloomed out growths with leaves would take about 3-5 years wouldn't it?



Once her plants stop loosing leaves she is in the zone. The reason to slowly reduce the amount is only to find the lower limit to reduce costs. Personally I would stay at the high rate because my interest is growing the plants faster than they grow in the wild (I did not say better because that is subjective). That is assuming the high rate solved the leaf loss problem and did not create some other issue.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> What is the possibility of using trays or plugs to keep a reservoir of fert in your pots for an extended period?



If the leca is causing problems by grabbing the P how will the reservoirs solve the problem. Won't the ratio of nutrients in the reservoir be out of balance?


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Does this mean you only have 3 mounted plants?
> 
> What is the possibility of using trays or plugs to keep a reservoir of fert in your pots for an extended period?



No, sorry. It means of all my mounted plants, which I have at least 50, only 3 are showing issues. Those three are one orchid plus two Hoyas. But the majority of my mounted plants are deciduous Dens, so they drop their leaves anyways.

Well yes, already going on. Most of what we've discussed has been related to the plants that stay outside year round.

The ones that come inside during winter do have reservoir trays, while they are inside. While they are outside in warm weather they do not have trays. And yes a few of them have shown similar symptoms, although less severe. But many of them are seedlings, not at blooming point yet. But some have bloomed and shown the leaves turning then dropping, again not as severe though.


----------



## Stone (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> > So some of what you are seeing there is a bit too much sun.
> 
> 
> Yes I have grown many hoyas as well. Too much light will cause leaf yellowing but not reddening on the edges. Thats classic Mg deficiency. BUT! You might find it will disappear when the plants really start taking off in the summer. But why waste your time liquid feeding hoyas? You will get monster growth with a controlled release fertilizer like nutricote and a Ca. source like Gypsum sprinked on at the start of the season. Thats it!! And no deficiency issues. At one stage I had over 100 baskets of hoyas for retail sale and they were all treated this way.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> If the leca is causing problems by grabbing the P how will the reservoirs solve the problem. Won't the ratio of nutrients in the reservoir be out of balance?



Well by your argument it is not causing disproportionate loss so adding reservoirs increases the amount of fert over time (same as feeding more frequently). This is basically what Ray does with Leca. He feeds at 50 ppm N but maintains more or less constant availability.

And comparing the results to old MSU use, the Leca P removal rate couldn't keep up with 50ppm input/ instantaneous waste rate. So if she can hold up 2-3 times the amount of fert in the pot over multiple days, she gets closer to the 50ppm P in/out rate (that didn't cause leaf drop).

From reading Renee's response above it sounds like we are getting somewhere.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I'm not convinced we are seeing a P shortage due to the ratio. Since Renee is the only one reporting it that tells us it has something to do with her environment. it seems obvious to me the volume of water that her plants get is dropping the total nutrient dose too low. Not just the P.
> 
> Going up slowly is one way but as we go slowly she looses her leaves. My approach would be to feed maximum to stop starvation and then go down slowly until the problem reoccurs. Then go back up a notch and you have the correct application rate.



The problem I see with this is that signs that she's getting now took a whole year to show signs. How fast will it take for signs show up if you "fix" the problem than slowly decrease dosage. To me, It would seem like it would take too long to find the right amount.... Just seems like a lot of up and down in dosage before you find the rate dose.

I agree with Rick... Fert needs to be applied more often but stay at 100 ppm N(or her current rate). With a spike(x2) of fert. for a week or two to "jump start" her plants. 

If it where me, I would not worry if it going to rain or not. I would apply anyways. The little bit of solution the plant/mix is holding is not very much compared to what the rain will give and offset alittle of the flushing.

Renee, May I suggest looking it a submersible or shallow well pump and using a hose with a misting(fogg-it) nozzle. You can mix your solution in a rain barrel or trash can. Makes it little easer to water with out having to mix every time you water. The set-up dont cost all that much. I spent about $200 for my whole set-up.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

So, it seems like their is a consensus that I've got some kind of nutritional deficiency. Which there are 4 potentials suggested, K, P, Mg, or overall lack of adequate nutrition.

This could be caused by my water flushing, fertilizer rate/frequency, or some interaction with clay products. Or something weird with my water.

Suggestions have been add bone meal to increase P, increase concentration, keep concentration the same but increase frequency, or add reservoir to have nutrients available longer.

Unfortunately my life is a bit crazy busy right now, so it would be extremely difficult to test all of these. So what would be the consensus on two things to test first?

stone, I only got into Hoyas a couple years ago, and as I was already growing orchids, I just treated them the same to keep things simple. BTW, there is another Hoya grower in Canada who I converted to K lite, she grows her Hoyas in S/H and has reported great results.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

Oops duplicate post


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

keithrs said:


> The problem I see with this is that signs that she's getting now took a whole year to show signs. How fast will it take for signs show up if you "fix" the problem than slowly decrease dosage. To me, It would seem like it would take too long to find the right amount.... Just seems like a lot of up and down in dosage before you find the rate dose.



Yes it takes a long, I would not disagree with what you say. But it really is the only way to learn the perfect application. 



> I agree with Rick... Fert needs to be applied more often but stay at 100 ppm N(or her current rate). With a spike(x2) of fert. for a week or two to "jump start" her plants.



Yes 100 ppm with every watering is perfect. But she can not block the rainfall which dilutes and flushes the 100ppm. I think she also said fertilizing twice a week was about as often as she can get it done. Since she has no way to apply fertilizer 5 days out of 7 her best option is to apply extra on the days she does apply fertilizer. Somehow there has to be enough minerals to produce the mass of plant tissue.



> If it where me, I would not worry if it going to rain or not. I would apply anyways. The little bit of solution the plant/mix is holding is not very much compared to what the rain will give and offset alittle of the flushing.



Yes fertilize rain or shine. Actually right after a rain is perfect timing.
Even at 200ppm N watering everyday would not be too much considering the rainfall in the equation. I am assuming it rains a lot of volume not just often.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Yes it takes a long, I would not disagree with what you say. But it really is the only way to learn the perfect application.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I apply fertilizer on rainy days, I could fertilize more often. Not every day, due to being away from home but more than twice a week. As for the rain, yes significant volume, think Florida torrential rains  the part of Florida I live in, is one of the wettest.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> So, it seems like their is a consensus that I've got some kind of nutritional deficiency. Which there are 4 potentials suggested, K, P, Mg, or overall lack of adequate nutrition.



Yes. I go with "overall lack of adequate nutrition"



> This could be caused by my water flushing, fertilizer rate/frequency, or some interaction with clay products. Or something weird with my water.



Probably all of the above. Except now I doubt there is anything wrong with your water.



> Suggestions have been add bone meal to increase P, increase concentration, keep concentration the same but increase frequency, or add reservoir to have nutrients available longer.



All solutions for the basic problem.



> Unfortunately my life is a bit crazy busy right now, so it would be extremely difficult to test all of these. So what would be the consensus on two things to test first?



Increasing the frequency is the best. But you can't because you cannot compete with the rain.

Double the concentration and continue as you are doing is your best hope to solve the problem in the shortest time frame. For the first week or two fertilize as often as you can to get the levels up asap. 



> BTW, there is another Hoya grower in Canada who I converted to K lite, she grows her Hoyas in S/H and has reported great results.



So this supports that the ratios of K-lite are correct AND it tells us your hoyas are not getting enough nutrients.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> If I apply fertilizer on rainy days, I could fertilize more often. Not every day, due to being away from home but more than twice a week. As for the rain, yes significant volume, think Florida torrential rains  the part of Florida I live in, is one of the wettest.



It is always better to use lower doses more often. But realistically are you going to go out on rainy days and fertilize? Are you going to fertilize 4 or 5 times a week always? I don't think so, if if you intend to.

Increase the dose double and this will likely solve the problem without impacting your routine. 

The one important factor when using higher nutrient levels in the fertilizer applications is to not let the plants dry out. You don't have that problem.


----------



## Brabantia (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Well for K lite if you feed at 100ppm N then you have about 250ppm total.
> 
> So about 2 X the normal dose.



(250x13)/100 = 32.5 ppm N ?? I don't understand your maths Rick


----------



## orcoholic (Mar 10, 2013)

I probably shouldn't be putting my 2 cents in here as I have no scientific background. I am a commercial vendor and have literally grown thousands of orchids. I don't wholesale, so many of my orchids are grown for several years before they are sold.

From just looking at the leaves on the sample pictures it looks like they are sunburned and nutrient deficient. Perhaps the nutrient deficiency is causing the leaves to become more easily damaged by sunlight than before. I think it's likely that this will happen in FL.

I have been watering at Ec of 100 during the growing season (Mar - Oct), 50 ppm during the other months and Ph of about 6.5 for 20 years without any problems at all. I've changed fertilizers many times and have never had any problems using these numbers - on any genera. My vandas grow as well as phals and Masd on it. 

With the MSU fertilizer I had to add citric acid to get to the 6.5 level. Due to the costs of shipping, I switched to Jacks RO formula - which is similar in makeup. Using the same Ph and Ec, I have had no problems.

I think the fertilizer rate needs to be increased to these levels at least and maybe more. I don't know an orchids appetite during the brutal heat of summers in FL. Ph level is just as important, and should be kept at 6 - 6.5.

Ec of 100 translates to 400ppm - 454ppm, depending on what meter you're using.

One question I have is do the roots turn green immediately when your water gets on them? To me, this always indicates if the orchids are able to take up the nutrients or not, and hold them in the velamin so the plant can get them. If they stay white while being watered, and then turn green a few minutes later, or don't turn green at all, there's something wrong - probably with the hardness or the Ph of the water.

Incidentally, a couple of weeks ago, after reading the article in the the AOS Mag, I started to convert Jack's RO formula to a K-Lite formula to see the results. They should show pretty quickly because now is the major growth season in my area.

While watering the other day I noticed the leaves on my Rene Marques (an Epi) were dark purple. I don't know if they were before I started the K-Lite regimen. Also, I have not been able to put up my shade cloths because it's been so wet and windy around here, but I suspect that's the reason. I usually get them up by Mar. 7.

My first thought was that the purple was due to the extra amount of sun combines with the extra Mg I started using when converting the Jack's. Don't have any idea why - it just looked like what I thought a leaf would look like if Mg was accumulating in the leaves and then the leaf was getting heated by excess sunlight.

My conversion to K-Lite was simple and i hope it's right. I reduced the Jack's in my stock solution by half (64 oz), and increased the Ca by 32oz and the Mg by 32oz. I think this is what the article indicated to do. If not, please let me know. My concern is that everything else in the Jack's is getting reduced by half too.

I'm not usually influenced by articles like this but this one was so well written and thought out, that I had to give the change a try. Many thanks to whoever wrote it. (Rick?)


----------



## orcoholic (Mar 10, 2013)

I'm not convinced it's a nutrient deficiency. I think it's more likely that the orchids losing the leaves were unable to adapt to the new fertilizer, similar to what I've heard happens to an orchids roots when it is moved from one medium to another. Never actually observed this, but have heard from a few advanced growers that this actually occurs.

My reasons are because the new growths are doing better than the old - rootwise and growthwise - if I understand Renee's post. I think the older pbulbs roots died when she switched the fertilizer and the leaves turned red and yellow because they got sunburned and because there are no roots to support the leaves.

If the leaf death happened a few months after the switch, and the pbulbs were shriveled, I would be more apt to come to this conclusion. If upon repotting there were no roots on the pbulbs with the problem, it would even be more likely, since just a nutrient deficiency doesn't seem like it should completely kill the roots - at least not in a year.

If this were the case, there's no worries because the orchid will put on bigger and better growths like your getting now. Or, at least no worries until the next time someone discovers a "better" fertilizer and everything starts all over again.

Remember, the only two things certain in an orchids life are death and taxonomy.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

ok, got pics, but I still have to upload them.

But I got some more numbers this morning.

Initial weight after 1st after 2nd pot size and media
833 886 895 5 inch, LECA
1181 1260 895 6 inch, LECA
283 344 351 4 inch, Turface
508 569  609 4 inch. Turface
807 844 871 5 inch LECA
255 297 306 mounted
971 1023 1032 8 inch, LECA
82 106 114 mounted


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

ok, there have been a couple of statements in the last few posts that make assumptions about my climate. They aren't necessarily true, Florida is a big state with many microclimates.

First, don't assume my pots don't dry out in a day. They can and do, especially once spring sets in. For example that pot I weighed yesterday is already down to 463g, about 20? hours after watering, and the high yesterday was only 66, and it was not sunny yesterday. Also, I mentioned way back in the beginning that I'm coastal. My backyard is less than half a mile from the Gulf. So, even though I have lots of rain, and high humidity, the breeze and wind is very strong compared to most places. It is a rare day the air is dead.

Second, just because I'm in Florida, doesn't mean we have severe heat year round. Again due to the closeness to the Gulf, we actually don't get to 100F often. The hottest month, we still have many days in the 80s and low 90s. Yes we do get a string of hot days, but it's not like S. Florida or interior Florida.

Third, I disagree that the p'bulbs that have lots their leaves don't have active roots. I disagree because I can see them. The root retention in my potting media is so so much better than when I grew in bark or CHC. (One of the minor reasons I really like the LECA)When I repot, I can trace the roots back to their p'bulb, and those roots are still healthy. Your theory of the leaf not being adjusted may be a valid one? I don't know about that. But the assumption the roots are dead is not correct.

And what's up with the site logging me off everytime I write a post? It seems almost like it times out? LOL


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

> orcoholic said:
> 
> 
> > > From just looking at the leaves on the sample pictures it looks like they are sunburned and nutrient deficient. Perhaps the nutrient deficiency is causing the leaves to become more easily damaged by sunlight than before. I think it's likely that this will happen in FL.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

orcoholic said:


> I'm not convinced it's a nutrient deficiency. I think it's more likely that the orchids losing the leaves were unable to adapt to the new fertilizer, similar to what I've heard happens to an orchids roots when it is moved from one medium to another. Never actually observed this, but have heard from a few advanced growers that this actually occurs.



The problem to adapt would be caused by a change in chemistry. If they are unable to adapt it is because of a deficiency or an excess of something.



> My reasons are because the new growths are doing better than the old - rootwise and growthwise - if I understand Renee's post. I think the older pbulbs roots died when she switched the fertilizer and the leaves turned red and yellow because they got sunburned and because there are no roots to support the leaves.
> 
> If the leaf death happened a few months after the switch, and the pbulbs were shriveled, I would be more apt to come to this conclusion. If upon repotting there were no roots on the pbulbs with the problem, it would even be more likely, since just a nutrient deficiency doesn't seem like it should completely kill the roots - at least not in a year.



I don't think dead roots have been reported?



> Remember, the only two things certain in an orchids life are death and taxonomy.



It is not certain that an orchid plant will die.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

ok first it's hard to find appropriate pics, as most of what we've been discussing has already happened, so I can't get pics showing it.

I'm going to start with good stuff.

This one shows improvement in growth. Think it's obvious which p'bulbs developed after I switched.




Here is a pic of how much improved my flowerings have been. I have had this plant for a few years now, and never had this result before. I did not have any leaf issues, this plant is still in CHC.












And here is a pic from last summer, showing leaf differences before and after the switch to k-lite - Hoyas.






And another


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> ok, got pics, but I still have to upload them.
> 
> But I got some more numbers this morning.
> 
> ...



Numbers are consistent with the one from yesterday other than the second line.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

Now here is a pic showing a glauca hybrid just starting it's spike, it is not one of the 3 mounted I mentioned above. I just noticed this, this morning.







And here is a plant that is a summer bloomer, and have seen no effect. It did bloom very well last summer, after the switch. As I mentioned, I did not start seeing things until fall. Please ignore the fact I didn't clean it up. And yes, it so needs repotted. I know. I guess I'm going to have to try and clean them up more if I want a CHM someday 




And here is the whole lovely Hoya with the red edges. I have a bunch like this.




I looked for a whole plant pic from last summer, I don't have one. But here is what the leaves used to look like.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 10, 2013)

Renee- Did your leaves start to change as cool/cold weather set in? I did notice that I had lots of leaves change color(green to yellow) as cool weather set in back in oct and are still dropping. I see this as normal because it has not been excessive. 

Ray- Is there a chance that she may have got a batch that was low in something? I know there was a ? on how homogenized the mixture of the fertilizer is, even with your best efforts the mix it?


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Numbers are consistent with the one from yesterday other than the second line.



That's what I get when trying to do too many things at one time.

The second line should read... 1181 , 1260, 1281. Sorry. The 895 belonged to someone else.

I just wanted to make sure that theories were not being based on the numbers from only one plant.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

keithrs said:


> Renee- Did your leaves start to change as cool/cold weather set in? I did notice that I had lots of leaves change color(green to yellow) as cool weather set in back in oct and are still dropping. I see this as normal because it has not been excessive.
> 
> Ray- Is there a chance that she may have got a batch that was low in something? I know there was a ? on how homogenized the mixture of the fertilizer is, even with your best efforts the mix it?



Keithrs, yes, the majority of them are from the wintertime, but I first started seeing this back in Sept/Oct timeframe. Cooler weather doesn't set in here until mid November. By cooler weather I mean nights starting to drop into the 50s. Days are still warm then usually.

Also, this is the 4th winter many of these guys have spent outside. I think I would have noticed it before??

As for homogenized, when I first got the K-lite I did notice that there are a lot of different sized pieces, so before I start measuring it out, I do mix up the dry powder - every time. I remember enough about what I call "water chemistry" to notice and do that. I am also on my third container of K-lite. I don't know if they all came from the same batch? I would guess not.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> First, don't assume my pots don't dry out in a day. They can and do, especially once spring sets in. For example that pot I weighed yesterday is already down to 463g, about 20? hours after watering, and the high yesterday was only 66, and it was not sunny yesterday.
> 
> The pot weighed 426 to start so it is drying but not dry yet.
> I assume the pot at 426 still had some moisture in the media before you watered it?
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> That's what I get when trying to do too many things at one time.
> 
> The second line should read... 1181 , 1260, 1281. Sorry. The 895 belonged to someone else.
> 
> I just wanted to make sure that theories were not being based on the numbers from only one plant.



It's gain is consistent with the others.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> Cooler weather doesn't set in here until mid November.



But short days do! Winter is also about day length.


----------



## orcoholic (Mar 10, 2013)

Still healthy roots on the old pbulbs kills my theory about the orchids not being able to adapt. 

If it is a deficiency, why would the new growths be so much bigger than the old? Wouldn't they be stunted?


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

"The pot weighed 426 to start so it is drying but not dry yet. 
I assume the pot at 426 still had some moisture in the media before you watered it?"

The pot was bone dry, it had been cool here over the last week, so I hadn't watered. (We are in a dry spell - which is ending tomorrow - serious rains for tomorrow) If I hadn't fertilized again this morning, I'm pretty sure by tomorrow morning it would have been back down to that weight.

Thanks for the logging off tip!


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> But short days do! Winter is also about day length.



Yes, but again this is the 4th winter they have spent under those conditions, and this past winter overall was actually a bit warmer than average. Although we are cooler than average right now. I do seriously spend too much time tracking the weather here, but as I grow outside, I do track it lol

And again the seasonal change was no difference under MSU.

I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just putting up all possibilities I hope, and trying to make sure everything is considered. An impossible job I know .


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

The pictures help a lot.

Where are pictures showing the excess leafless bulbs?
I also don't see a "lot" of yellow leaves?

The pictures do not convince me that you actually have a specific nutrient problem. Actually they support the opposite you show a lot of improved growth from before! 

Consider this... If you double the growth rate of new leaves why would that not allow the plant to abort double the amount of old leaves?

This is basically your first complete winter cycle under the influence of K-lite and actually all I can see is a general low nutrient level. This may even be caused by the low winter temperatures and nut low nutrients. Increasing the overall strength of the fertilizer will probably show quick results....But warming temperatures will also.

Actually I think your plants look great considering they are outside.

Now did you post pictures of the worst or best plants? oke:


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

orcoholic said:


> If it is a deficiency, why would the new growths be so much bigger than the old? Wouldn't they be stunted?



The idea is that Phosphorous is low and the plant is taking stored Phosphorous from the old leaves and thus dropping the old leaves. This assumption is that the loss of old leaves that show signs of P deficiency is an indication that the fertilizer is low in P. 

But your observation is good. If the P is so low the plants need to rob from the old foliage the new growth should not be so vigorous. 

So here is the issue... is the lowering levels of Phosphorous in old leaves due to poor nutrient supplies or is it simply how the plant aborts an old no longer need leaf?

When your dog sheds hair it is not from starvation it is from regeneration....same is true with plant leaves.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> Yes, but again this is the 4th winter they have spent under those conditions, and this past winter overall was actually a bit warmer than average. Although we are cooler than average right now. I do seriously spend too much time tracking the weather here, but as I grow outside, I do track it lol
> 
> And again the seasonal change was no difference under MSU.
> 
> I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just putting up all possibilities I hope, and trying to make sure everything is considered. An impossible job I know .



You are not argumentative you are giving great info!



> And again the seasonal change was no difference under MSU.



Maybe because the plants were growing slower and "harder" under MSU and needed all their old leaves to support the new leaves. Now with the new nutrient supply they no longer need to support the old used up leaves.
If the old leaves had struggling nutrient content it is better for the plant to replace them with new reproductive leaves than it is to send more nutrients to the old ones.

If a tree grows twice as many leaves this season as last season you can't expect to rake only the same amount of leaves this year as last.

More new leaves and flowers means more old leaves.

Now if you want to try to keep as many old leaves as possible you will need to increase the available nutrient supply so the plant forgets to shed the old leaves. 
"I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just putting up all possibilities I hope, and trying to make sure everything is considered." :wink:


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> The pictures help a lot.
> 
> Where are pictures showing the excess leafless bulbs?
> I also don't see a "lot" of yellow leaves?
> ...



Isn't it enough that I've already publicly admitted all that I do wrong with my babies? I don't think I'm this honest with my Dr. 

ok, here is a bad one. Total of 9 p'bulbs, the bare ones dropped recently, and 3 more of those p'bulbs are in the process of dropping their leaves. In a month it will have only 3 of 9 p'bulbs with leaves. The leaf all the way to the right is actually starting to turn the red/yellow as well, it didn't come through in the picture. BTW, good great blooms off it it when it was in bloom. I'll attach that pic as well. In the bloom pic, you can see one of the leaves turning.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> Isn't it enough that I've already publicly admitted all that I do wrong with my babies? I don't think I'm this honest with my Dr.
> 
> View attachment 7761




Apply double dose fertilizer and see your doctor next month.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

oh and cause I have to show I'm not a completely crappy grower, I'm no expert, but I'm not that bad.

Here is a quick snapshot of my D. nobile hv. cooksoniana and D. gracilicaule. First bloom on the nobile, flowers not compeltely open yet.


----------



## dodidoki (Mar 10, 2013)

A read some article about macroelements.
My idea is next:
Rick's idea with K-lite works but brobably not only because of low K but because of higher Ca and Mg.

As Rick wrote too in his article, K, Mg and Ca is anatonisctic ions in relation of uptake. Most of regular fertilizer contains very low concetntration of Ca and Mg but contains high conc. of potassium.
This lead to not toxicity of K but to deficiency of Ca and Mg.
Typical sign of Ca deficiency that roots stopped in growing, tips turn brown and slimy and die, leaves stay small and are not able to open, stay closed.In time plant will show of deficiencies of all nutritients because of root insufficiency. This symptoms disappear with K-lite because of high Ca cc.If K-lite results shows long term deficiency symptoms that is maybe because of low P. Signs are followings: older leaves turn to red, later yellow and fall down.
I think Rick's formulas is good way, maybe will be better with higher P (N/P 13/6-7 istead of 13/3)

Another interesting macronutritient what Rick pointed to is sulphur. Sulphur is a very important component of many albumins but there is not much, if any in fertilizers. One of the reason is Rick's success using Epsom salt for providing Mg.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> oh and cause I have to show I'm not a completely crappy grower, I'm no expert, but I'm not that bad.



Ummm... You have not shown anything crappy yet. 
I think you are a worry-wart..... :rollhappy:


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Apply double dose fertilizer and see your doctor next month.



By math the fastest easiest way to double the amount of available nutrient is just to put a tray under the pot and keep the fluid retention in the pot higher.

Right now Renee, you are only retaining 50% of the water your pour through the pot and it hardly stays in for more than a couple days. No accounting how much the roots actually have access to and suck up into the plant. If your standard watering practice left 70 ml of water in the pot which provides X amount of nutrient then by retaining 140 ml (with a tray) you double the amount without wasting it on the ground, or increasing the concentration rate.

Deeper/broader tray you can keep even more. 280ml is 4X the total amount available. 420 ml is 6X the total amount of nutrient you are presently feeding, and at that point is also the same total amount of P you would be feeding with a standard MSU P equivalent of 70 mls of pot water at 50ppm of P. For scale perspective, 1 measuring cup of water is 225 ml, so 420 is not even 2 cups of water. In a 5 inch pot that might be an inch deep.

Plants are 90% water anyway. Unlike most other nutrients plants intake and exhale (consume) water at much higher rates than just what they retain for growth. Plants generally don't significantly pee/poop/exhale PKCaMgand micros. But they will consume a bunch of water to get the other stuff.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

http://www.ladyslipper.com/coco3.htm

Check out the chart at the bottom of the page.

The picture of Renee's excellent plant in CHC compared to the Leca products goes back to just total water retention attributes of the different materials.

In the Antec table they have Aliflor (a brand of leca) and sponge rock to compare to for inerts. But its pretty obvious how much more water is held up over longer periods of time for the organic.

Use of trays will counter the low water retention attributes of your potting mix.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> ok, got pics, but I still have to upload them.
> 
> But I got some more numbers this morning.
> 
> ...



It's interesting that your two mounted plants actually hold a higher percentage of the water you put on them than the leca/turface pots.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> she grows her Hoyas in S/H and has reported great results.



Another piece of the puzzle?

If you use expanded clay might need to go SH.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

Brabantia said:


> (250x13)/100 = 32.5 ppm N ?? I don't understand your maths Rick



Not computing equivalent N mass Brabantia. Total, all salts mass.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

orcoholic said:


> Ec of 100 translates to 400ppm - 454ppm, depending on what meter you're using.
> 
> Many thanks to whoever wrote it. (Rick?)



Yes what units is that meter?

uS/cm is about 2Xppm so EC 2000 us/cm = 1000ppm of TDS (sodium chloride).

Maybe your meter is in milli seimens/cm.

In that case you are dosing a lot heavier than most of us.

Thanks, I wrote the article.

Started with a daydream almost two years ago. Look up a thread titled "Ever Wonder".


----------



## dodidoki (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Yes what units is that meter?
> 
> uS/cm is about 2Xppm so EC 2000 us/cm = 1000ppm of TDS (sodium chloride).
> 
> ...




There is a so called Beta-factor to convert Ec to TDS. You shoud know what salts you solved in water. Eg. if you solve NaCL, beta=2. If you solve eg. Na2So4, Beta =3. If I mean well....


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> There is a so called Beta-factor to convert Ec to TDS. You shoud know what salts you solved in water. Eg. if you solve NaCL, beta=2. If you solve eg. Na2So4, Beta =3. If I mean well....




pretty weird.

I measure EC on mixtures of salts all the time. Yes the type of salt "bends' the TDS relationship curve, but by about +/- 30%.

So EC (in uS/cm) can bounce around maybe 2.6X to 1.4X TDS (in mg/L/ppm) depending on the relative contribution of the different salts.

But in Orcaholic's case his units show TDS 5X higher than EC (completely backwards for the units I use). 

So just need clarification.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Use of trays will counter the low water retention attributes of your potting mix.



The trays will counter the water retention. That would counter the nutrient shortage as long as the trays contain the nutrients. What happens to the nutrients in the 1 inch deep tray when it rains one inch? The trays will have the same problem holding nutrients as the pots won't they?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Another piece of the puzzle?
> 
> If you use expanded clay might need to go SH.



Or hydroponic? 
Nutrients supplied with every irrigation onto an inert media is basically a form of hydroponics. S/H relies on the wicking from a reservoir of nutrient solution that has a controlled known content. Because of the unknown rainfall flushes the nutrients in the trays or reservoir can not be known. It still seems the best solution is to supply more nutrients from the top.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> It's interesting that your two mounted plants actually hold a higher percentage of the water you put on them than the leca/turface pots.



I noticed that, wondered if anyone else would  Im guessing it's the nature of the wood I use for mounting. Most of them are cedar shingles, which are pretty rough surface, allowing for a very uneven surface, allowing for a increase in overall surface area, but just a guess here. plus I would think the wood itself will absorb some water.



Rick said:


> Another piece of the puzzle?
> 
> If you use expanded clay might need to go SH.



I actually tried S/H a couple summers ago. All but one plant went thru a serious decline. I made the assumption that my rains flushed too much which led the plants always in too good of water which would leach nutrients from the plants. But that was at that time. Since then I have put a few Hoyas in S/H and they seem for the most part ok. So I don't know why the orchids didn't perform well in S/H. Makes no sense. I did wait to convert till they had active new root growth.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> The trays will counter the water retention. That would counter the nutrient shortage as long as the trays contain the nutrients. What happens to the nutrients in the 1 inch deep tray when it rains one inch? The trays will have the same problem holding nutrients as the pots won't they?



When it rains one inch, then she'll worry about it. It doesn't rain every day, and not one inch every day either. So if it dilutes out a bit it will be fine. Right now that one pot doesn't even hold water for 24 hours with out rain.

So if you multiply the formula 2-3 times, and spit it into the pot and it rains one inch it all ends up on the ground before the plant has a chance to see it anyway.

Main thing is to increase exposure duration. In the one case where the plant is still in CHC, the plant looks good, and the big difference would appear to be relative water retention properties.

In my paper I speculated that the problem with CHC was that it held to much fert with all the water it retained. Renee bailed on CHC before K lite. Most likely speculating it was keeping the roots too wet (rather than too salty). Now that she's on K lite, CHC is OK because it holds more water (that happens to have less salt now).

The plants need the water more than the fert. 

I say keep it in the pot longer and she'll do fine.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

I have come to a conclusion. Thank you all for your input.

My hubby is just going to have to agree to a greenhouse if he want a happy wife 

Which btw he is sitting beside looking over my shoulder as I type.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> pretty weird.
> 
> So just need clarification.



That is why I'm speaking in terms of ppm...

I use meters that I have had forever that measure in milimohs.
Generally nutrient solutions of 1.0 have always produced good results.
When I test solution that measures 1 milimoh with a cheap ppm meter it reads about 500ppm. Math conversions supported this. So I know that applying nutrients at 500ppm will not hurt the plants. What actual ppms plants need is totally dependent on the species and environment.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> I have come to a conclusion. Thank you all for your input.
> 
> My hubby is just going to have to agree to a greenhouse if he want a happy wife
> 
> Which btw he is sitting beside looking over my shoulder as I type.



I bet you get a greenhouse!


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick;
In my paper I speculated that the problem with CHC was that it held to much fert with all the water it retained. Renee bailed on CHC before K lite. Most likely speculating it was keeping the roots too wet (rather than too salty). Now that she's on K lite said:


> Actually I bailed on CHC mainly for the same reason I bailed on bark. Palmetto bugs like to hang oCut in pots with organic media.
> 
> I would rather burn all my plants then pick up another pot and have a palmetto bug jump out at me. The few pots that still have CHC in them, I make my boys pick up and shake before I will touch them. I'm willing to make sacrifices for my orchids, but not that!
> 
> Maybe silly reason for some, but this original northern girl cannot get over the idea of palmetto bugs.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

rcb said:


> I actually tried S/H a couple summers ago. All but one plant went thru a serious decline. I made the assumption that my rains flushed too much which led the plants always in too good of water which would leach nutrients from the plants. But that was at that time.




That was pre low K wasn't it? Knowing what I now know about K toxicity, I'd say you were probably seeing K toxicity.

Ray's orchids (including lots of Catts) are doing great SH. And for the most part even better low K.

Logic is a bit funny that you would attribute holding up water in the pots with nutrient starvation after a rain flush, but now without trays you flush even more efficiently and not get starvation with the old MSU? Without the trays your nutrient exposure duration is always shorter.


----------



## rcb (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> That was pre low K wasn't it? Knowing what I now know about K toxicity, I'd say you were probably seeing K toxicity.
> 
> Ray's orchids (including lots of Catts) are doing great SH. And for the most part even better low K.
> 
> Logic is a bit funny that you would attribute holding up water in the pots with nutrient starvation after a rain flush, but now without trays you flush even more efficiently and not get starvation with the old MSU? Without the trays your nutrient exposure duration is always shorter.



Yes it was pre low K. My logic may have not been the best but at the time I couldn't think of any other reason why they weren't ok.


----------



## Brabantia (Mar 10, 2013)

Brabantia said:


> (250x13)/100 = 32.5 ppm N ?? I don't understand your maths Rick



Maybe I am me badly expressed. KLite is 13% nitrogen, if 250 ppm (250 mgr/L) is the total salt dissolved you have in solution 32.5 ppm of nitrogen and not 100 ppm N.
About the relation between ppm fertilyser and EC.
By computing different mixtures made with Calcium nitrate, Magnesium nitrate, Potassium phosphate monobasic salts (MSU and near KLite fertilyser simulation) I found this relation: at 65 ppm N (0.5 gr fertilyser/1L) EC= 400 to 500 µS. 
400 µS when I use Magnesium nitrate and 500 µS with Magnesium sulfate. For the different salt mixtures tested (at 65 ppm N) the ratio: total salt weight / µS is always 1.2.
This is just for your information.


----------



## orcoholic (Mar 10, 2013)

The meter does measure ms. Had a lot of caffeine this morning. Have always watered around 1 in growing months and .5 in other months.


----------



## orcoholic (Mar 10, 2013)

It should have said an Ec of 1, not 100.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

orcoholic said:


> It should have said an Ec of 1, not 100.



That makes sense if its 1milli Siemen

Thats 1000 uS/cm and dividing that by 2 for a sodium chloride convention gives 500 ppm TDS.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

Brabantia said:


> Maybe I am me badly expressed. KLite is 13% nitrogen, if 250 ppm (250 mgr/L) is the total salt dissolved you have in solution 32.5 ppm of nitrogen and not 100 ppm N.
> About the relation between ppm fertilyser and EC.
> By computing different mixtures made with Calcium nitrate, Magnesium nitrate, Potassium phosphate monobasic salts (MSU and near KLite fertilyser simulation) I found this relation: at 65 ppm N (0.5 gr fertilyser/1L) EC= 400 to 500 µS.
> 400 µS when I use Magnesium nitrate and 500 µS with Magnesium sulfate. For the different salt mixtures tested (at 65 ppm N) the ratio: total salt weight / µS is always 1.2.
> This is just for your information.



I could be expressing badly myself.

We wanted to start with 100 ppm N. Then compute the total TDS of the whole salt.

At least from old K lite brochure I have 12-1-1-10-3 +trace
So I set N to 100ppm, all the rest is 15% by weight. So by proportion (100/12%)X15% = 125ppm more so total of 225 + fudge for trace.

But now I already see one error since nitrate N is 443 mg for every 100 mg/L-N. So now pushing the TDS closer to 600mg/L.

Looking at the basic chart for Klite mixing rates it says 770mg/L is the TDS for whole salt at 100ppm N So still missing significant accounting though I wouldn't have given the micros that much credit.


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Or hydroponic?
> Nutrients supplied with every irrigation onto an inert media is basically a form of hydroponics. S/H relies on the wicking from a reservoir of nutrient solution that has a controlled known content. Because of the unknown rainfall flushes the nutrients in the trays or reservoir can not be known. It still seems the best solution is to supply more nutrients from the top.



Well she just have to come up with her own consensus from the info we've all supplied and try something out:wink:


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> So I know that applying nutrients at 500ppm will not hurt the plants. What actual ppms plants need is totally dependent on the species and environment.



Well now it turns out that 200ppm N is actually closer to 1600ppm (not 500ppm).

Is that still an amount you are comfortable adding to orchids? That's a pretty foreign environment. I didn't find anything close to that in the jungle data.


----------



## tomkalina (Mar 10, 2013)

1600 ppm sounds about right, Rick, since my 50 ppm N K-Lite equivalent (1/3 tsp/gal) dissolved in 20% Chgo+ 80% R/O water is running about 430 ppm TDS. Now I'm going to try the same 1/3 tsp/gal K-Lite dose in straight R/O to see what I come up with for TDS.......I'd like to irrigate with a nominal 200 ppm max TDS if possible.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Well now it turns out that 200ppm N is actually closer to 1600ppm (not 500ppm).
> 
> Is that still an amount you are comfortable adding to orchids? That's a pretty foreign environment. I didn't find anything close to that in the jungle data.




No, not on a constant feed.
As I said 500 ppm total is a good level. 600 is in that zone but 1600 is not.
I just read these last posts, how did the ppms jump so high?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

> tomkalina said:
> 
> 
> > 1600 ppm sounds about right, Rick, since my 50 ppm N K-Lite equivalent (1/3 tsp/gal) dissolved in 20% Chgo+ 80% R/O water is running about 430 ppm TDS.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > The K-lite chart says 1/3 tsp will give 50ppm N.
> > We need to know the total ppms of salt K-lite adds to water.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Renee...

Can you please tell us...
the amount of K-lite you use to make your concentrate.
How much water is in the concentrate mixture.
How much of this concentrate you put in your 20l sprayer.

Do you have tds meter or does a friend? (You can get one at ACE Hwd for about $20)
Measure the tds of your fresh water.
Measure the tds (ppm) of your concentrate
measure the tds of the solution you are applying with the sprayer.

Measuring the water that is inside your growing media would be very good.
This is not so hard to do, all you need is to collect a spoonful.
Get a clean dry tray that will hold water.
Before you water your plants collect samples.
Sit a plant in the dry tray and tilt the pot so it is at an angle with the drain hole down and some small amount of water should drain out the drain hole. This water is your sample. Keep doing this until you have collected enough water to test with the tds meter.

If the above does not yield any water try doing the process the day after the plants are watered. Or if you happen to be home when it starts to rain try to collect some of the first water to drain out of the pots.

The result of this test will tell us the concentration of salts in the water in your pots. Ideally this water will represent the amount of nutrients that your plants are getting.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > 1.45 grams per gallon is closer to a 1/4 tsp than a 1/3.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> Well now it turns out that 200ppm N is actually closer to 1600ppm (not 500ppm).
> 
> Is that still an amount you are comfortable adding to orchids? That's a pretty foreign environment. I didn't find anything close to that in the jungle data.



1600 ppm is on the strong side but if a person is only applying fertilizer "once in a while" that rate won't hurt plants that are not salt sensitive.
In reality considering all the fresh rain Renee's plants get that strength may well be similar nutrients to what your plants get.

What we really need to see is what is the content of the media moisture inside her pots. The fertilizer spray she puts on may very well be diluted 50% as it mixes with the water in the pots.

So many questions about what actually happens insid ethe pot!
Her pots we know retain about 70 g of fertilizer water. We can assume that they also would retain 70 g of rain water. But NOT 140 g of fertilizer water and rainwater. ONLY 70 gms. total. 

Math now.....

If the media is holding 70 grams of rainwater with 0ppm N and then she applies 70 g fertilizer water that contains 100ppm N how many ppm of N does her media water contain the next day?

But this only tells us what the available nutrient content is in the media. We don't know if the orchids can get it or how much they can get. Perhaps they get the most advantage rapid absorption from the actual fertilizer water contacting the roots.

oke:


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere the Math was off by a lot to jump from 600ppm to 1600ppm so this is good to talk through.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Mar 10, 2013)

gonewild said:


> What we really need to see is what is the content of the media moisture inside her pots. The fertilizer spray she puts on may very well be diluted 50% as it mixes with the water in the pots.



She's already told us that the 70 gr weight addition in the one pot was gone by 20 hours, and the stuff was dry at the beginning. Renee's numbers also don't seem off base if you check out that table from the Antec site I posted.

Aliflor wasn't made to hang on to water, just wick it up from a tank source. On a pass through basis it retains very little water and drys out fast. Its a very poor choice of material for top down watering only.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

So how much fertilizer does Renee need to apply to correct the problem?

My opinion based on current info (changes daily)..
Renee has been applying the correct amount but what she is applying is not being available to the plants.

The solution is:
1. Increase fertilizer dosage strength.
or
2. Increase the frequency of fertilizer applications.
or
3. Build a roof to block the rain.

And added to the above I'm not sure she has a nutrient problem.
Seeing her pictures and considering it is winter I don't really see a big problem. Old leaves turning yellow and falling off is normal and in the pictures there does not seem too many.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick said:


> > She's already told us that the 70 gr weight addition in the one pot was gone by 20 hours, and the stuff was dry at the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rcb (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Renee...
> 
> Can you please tell us...
> the amount of K-lite you use to make your concentrate.
> ...




3.5 tsps into 1 gallon warm water which is then all added to my 20l sprayer. No I don't have a TDS meter, I can get one. But I'm heading out of town here in two hours, so it will be a while.


----------



## rcb (Mar 11, 2013)

Ok, you all have given me so much information, I can't thank you enough. But as you have said, I need to take it all, sort through it, think about what is possible for me to do with my specific limitations and proceed. I'm going to be traveling for the next couple days, so I'll have plenty of time to do this.

I still owe you all some answers, and as I get them I will let you know. I will be able to check in periodically, so if you have any other questions, just ask.

Again thank you all especially considering you don't know me, you have been amazingly attentive.


----------



## Ray (Mar 11, 2013)

*A 3-Part Post*



rcb said:


> 3.5 tsps into 1 gallon warm water which is then all added to my 20l sprayer. No I don't have a TDS meter, I can get one. But I'm heading out of town here in two hours, so it will be a while.


That concentration is - according to the label - about 565 ppm N. If you're diluting that to 20 L (I'm unclear of that from this post, but I hope so), the application rate is around 105 ppm N.

Back to an earlier part of this discussion - we really ought to be using mass, not volume when discussing application rates. The bulk density of the K-Lite is 15% lower than that of the MSU RO formula, for example, based upon the fill height in the jars I repackage. That might push Renee's dosing to 85-90 ppm N, still not too bad if it's retained by the potting medium.

Concerning the TDS, calculations throw us off a bit. For 100 ppm N, it takes 0.77 g/L. 0.77 g/L is 770 ppm (actually a bit more, as the dissolved minerals will decrease the volume of water in that liter a bit). But how do we deal with the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that come along with the ingredients? Do they contribute to the TDS? Do we only include the cations in the TDS?


----------



## keithrs (Mar 11, 2013)

rcb said:


> Again thank you all especially considering you don't know me, you have been amazingly attentive.



What ya saying?oke:


----------



## tomkalina (Mar 11, 2013)

Lance - I have to think that someone has determined the TDS of K-Lite at 50-100 ppm N in pure R/O (Rick?) unless everyone is blending with higher solids water for the micro-nutrients. As soon as my tank is full of fresh R/O (hopefully today) - my plan is to add 1/3 tsp/gal and measure the TDS. I'd like to measure pH as well, but my pH wand has died. Stay tuned....


----------



## rcb (Mar 11, 2013)

I spoke to the local water facility today.

They use CaOH to adjust the pH to 7.

They still use Sodium hypochlorite instead of chloramine.

They have now started testing TDS "every so often" and over the past year it "comes in" between 20 and 200 mg/l.

He said they haven't changed anything recently.

Ray - yes I dump the whole gallon into my sprayer. Glad to know my math was right  because I did check it to make sure recently.


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 11, 2013)

Ray said:


> Concerning the TDS, calculations throw us off a bit. For 100 ppm N, it takes 0.77 g/L. 0.77 g/L is 770 ppm (actually a bit more, as the dissolved minerals will decrease the volume of water in that liter a bit). But how do we deal with the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that come along with the ingredients? Do they contribute to the TDS? Do we only include the cations in the TDS?



I will test this out using Na2O and report back. I agree that we need to get a handle on TDS measurement. Has anyone here actually calibrated their TDS meter using NaCl, as recommended?


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> I will test this out using Na2O and report back. I agree that we need to get a handle on TDS measurement. Has anyone here actually calibrated their TDS meter using NaCl, as recommended?



I have calibrated mine against KCL, which is an ASTM standard.

Within the operation ranges we play with, NaCl and KCL are almost identical.


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > It just needs to be watered everyday with nutrients, which is the way I like to grow if possible.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

Ray said:


> But how do we deal with the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that come along with the ingredients? Do they contribute to the TDS? Do we only include the cations in the TDS?



I mentioned that earlier Ray.

oxygen attached to nitrogen (aka Nitrate) is a complete molecule with mass that reads as TDS (both by conductivity estimation, and real TDS measurment by cooking off the water in an oven).

The waters of hydration (which are attached to the calcium and magnesium nitrate salts) are essentially salt bound water that you can never dry out completely. Those just go to water when the salt is mixed. It adds mass to the dry salt, but not to the conductivity/ TDS measurment. So that's why my fast guess to the TDS question is 600 mg/L as opposed to the 770 with the difference mostly due to waters of hydration associated with the two biggest salts in the recipe.


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

orcoholic said:


> The meter does measure ms. Had a lot of caffeine this morning. Have always watered around 1 in growing months and .5 in other months.



Coffee in growing months and beer in the 0.5 months:wink:

This could make for some extreme conductivity measurmentsoke:oke:

On the other hand Jean Lux does coffee each morning and beer at night.

So his measurments must go up and down each day!!!


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

rcb said:


> They have now started testing TDS "every so often" and over the past year it "comes in" between 20 and 200 mg/l.
> .



With that amount of variation it could be useful to get your own meter.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Which I think me and Keith also advocated, but sounded like it was going to be to much of a pain to execute. Which is why I advocated adding the trays to extend the holding time.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> With that amount of variation it could be useful to get your own meter.



I wonder what is the cause of the variation?
If they add enough CaOH to raise it 180ppm doesn't that add a lot of extra Ca?
How does the addition of CaOH effect the Phosphorous in the fertilizer solution?


----------



## tomkalina (Mar 11, 2013)

Hi Rick,

Using a new membrane and filters on my R/O (thanks Ray) I filled my 55 gal drum with 50 gal of pure R/O and got a TDS reading of <10 ppm and a pH of 7.0. After adding 1/3 tsp/gal of K-Lite (16.5 tsp) and mixing well, the readings were 340 ppm TDS and 6.5 pH. With 12.9% total N in K-Lite the reading indicates I have 44 ppm N in that batch or slightly less than the 50 ppm I would have expected. I'll take readings again tomorrow in case all of the K-Lite may not have dissolved.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> Hi Rick,
> 
> Using a new membrane and filters on my R/O (thanks Ray) I filled my 55 gal drum with 50 gal of pure R/O and got a TDS reading of <10 ppm and a pH of 7.0. After adding 1/3 tsp/gal of K-Lite (16.5 tsp) and mixing well, the readings were 340 ppm TDS and 6.5 pH. With 12.9% total N in K-Lite the reading indicates I have 44 ppm N in that batch or slightly less than the 50 ppm I would have expected. I'll take readings again tomorrow in case all of the K-Lite may not have dissolved.



Can you weigh 16.5 tsp to see the actual grams weight?


----------



## tomkalina (Mar 11, 2013)

Next time, I'll take an actual weight of the K-Lite; this time all I did was use level teaspoons. I also noticed the K-Lite particles were not homogenous in size - i.e. some particles were large and flat and some were like grains of sand, so maybe an exact weight measurement is the way to go.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> Next time, I'll take an actual weight of the K-Lite; this time all I did was use level teaspoons. I also noticed the K-Lite particles were not homogenous in size - i.e. some particles were large and flat and some were like grains of sand, so maybe an exact weight measurement is the way to go.



For your purpose the volume measure is close enough. But if a person is only using 1 or 2 tsp in a batch an error might be large.
I doubt such error would cause any growing issue because on average the next batch would likely average the nutrients out.

But for the calculations we are trying to do it would be good to know the weight and the resulting ec reading.


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> Hi Rick,
> 
> the reading indicates I have 44 ppm N in that batch or slightly less than the 50 ppm I would have expected. I'll take readings again tomorrow in case all of the K-Lite may not have dissolved.



Dang that's already 88% of target. Pretty close for government work (as they say).

Also remeber that the volume to actual mass is 15% low (i.e. a 1/3 tsp (which should be 1.45 grams, is actually only 1.23 grams of material). So that could be the 12% off target you are seeing right there.


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

tomkalina said:


> Next time, I'll take an actual weight of the K-Lite; this time all I did was use level teaspoons. I also noticed the K-Lite particles were not homogenous in size - i.e. some particles were large and flat and some were like grains of sand, so maybe an exact weight measurement is the way to go.



Yes Ray estimated a 15% difference between volume/mass.

perfect Tom


----------



## consettbay2003 (Mar 11, 2013)

I bought a cheap coffee bean grinder and blitzed the K-Lite to a uniform powder. Now I sleep better a night.


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I wonder what is the cause of the variation?
> If they add enough CaOH to raise it 180ppm doesn't that add a lot of extra Ca?
> How does the addition of CaOH effect the Phosphorous in the fertilizer solution?



They are only bringing the pH up to 7 so unless the pH was very low at start (<<4.0) They aren't using much lime. Shoot I'd really be wondering what crazy source water was gettin used in the first place that started out with a very low pH.

CaOH doesnt stay as CaOH when added to an acid. It will go to some ionic form or bicarbonate (theoretical only), sulfate or chloride. You can get soluble calcium phosphate if the availble acid was phosphoric, and kept the pH from getting too high. The additional soluble Ca in the surface water won't effect the phospahte in the fert. 

HOWEVER..... if the soluble Ca concentrations get too high, then you could cause a magnesium imbalance, which may intern give problems to P uptake and utilization in the plant. But we're getting into real maybe's here.


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

Man every time I try to post, I get timed out, and then need to copy/log back in/paste


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I see for Renee is the rain flushing the trays and removing the nutrients. IF this occurs the trays don't solve the nutrient problem. Plus if she plunges the current root system into water it may cause some root loss.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Plus if she plunges the current root system into water it may cause some root loss.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

consettbay2003 said:


> I bought a cheap coffee bean grinder and blitzed the K-Lite to a uniform powder. Now I sleep better a night.



I sleep pretty good when I drink a cup of coffee but I'll try a cup of K-lite if it will make me sleep better.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> But we're getting into real maybe's here.



I think we need to look at the maybes in Renee's case. Since she is the only one reporting the possible P issue using K-lite.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > http://climatecenter.fsu.edu/products-services/data/1981-2010-normals/tampa
> ...


----------



## rcb (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I think we need to look at the maybes in Renee's case. Since she is the only one reporting the possible P issue using K-lite.



I told you I'm special 



gonewild said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Well perhaps. I assume torrential rains to be a inch of water often.
> ...


----------



## rcb (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Start shallow and work up. Didn't say to submerge. The amount of water I suggested adding to a 5" pot would probably not even bring it up and inch. Or spread it out in even a broader tray.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

rcb said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > I actually already do this for some of my wintertime inside plants to keep them from making a mess while they are inside.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

rcb said:


> I told you I'm special
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

I just bought a little tds meter at the hwd store to make a test.

My R0 water is 58ppm (5 year old cartridge).

I don't have a 1/3 tsp measure so I used 1/2 tsp.

1/2 tsp in one gallon of water gave a reading of 560 ppm
I added another 1/2 tsp and the reading went to 1060ppm.

To get the 1/2 tsp measure I used the K-lite as it came from the can being careful not to get to much of either fine or coarse. Carefully leveled off the excess so I am confident I had equal correct measures.

I don't have a gram scale here so no way to check the weight.


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

OK a tsp holds 5 ml, and Ray indicated that K lite is 15% liter than volume.

So that should be 4.25 g into a gallon (3.785 l/gal) = 1.12 grams or 1120ppm of TDS

On the Klite chart that comes out to 150ppm N.

Even taking out the 60ppm of your "RO water". That's 89% on target using a 1/2 tsp!!

Now if we take out for waters of hydration, then its probably spot on.


----------



## Ray (Mar 11, 2013)

<soapbox>

All of the sniping seen on SO many forums and other internet sites, this thread ought to be documented and held as an example of how the internet can be SO helpful, utilizing the thinking and experience of folks for disparate situations to come to the aid of another.

</soapbox>


That, of course, depends upon us actually finding a resolution.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Ray said:


> That, of course, depends upon us actually finding a resolution.



We already have found at least 6 resolutions! :rollhappy:


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> We already have found at least 6 resolutions! :rollhappy:



And we've only called each other "blithering idiots" once or twice:rollhappy:


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

OK

I think its critical for Renee to get a usable conductivity or TDS meter.

Her tap water is too unstable
The rain events would cause unstable sump/tray TDS concentrations


I think we have some consensus that we'd like to see longer term levels of fert in the pot. Ideally around 50ppm.

But if irrigation water fluctuates from 20-200 ppm and rainfall goes from 3 to 8 inches per month, with measurable rainfall 15 days a month, then you won't have a clue to add or not without TDS measurements.

It may pay off to go to 1000+ ppm in August/September if you know your going to throw 1/2 of it away each day. But no point in dosing at more than 500 in the lower rainfall months when you only get a few inches per month and the sump water still says you have 300ppm


----------



## Rick (Mar 11, 2013)

Using a TDS meter for measuring sump water is like driving a car, and adjusting gas pedal for the conditions.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> On the Klite chart that comes out to 150ppm N.
> 
> Even taking out the 60ppm of your "RO water". That's 89% on target using a 1/2 tsp!!
> 
> Now if we take out for waters of hydration, then its probably spot on.



89% is close enough since no one actually knows how many PPMs is optimum.
In reality the dose should probably fluctuate with the weather and stage of growth of the plants growing outside anyway. Plants growing outside under fluctuating conditions are going to have different needs from plants growing in a consistent indoor environment.

If you can manage to get nutrients supplied with every watering very low dosage rates will be good. But if you can't apply fertilizer every time plants are watered the dose should be increased.

If I were Renee I would increase the dosage to 1 tsp per gallon and apply everyday for a week, rain or shine (assume some rain). Then I would back off to 1/2 tsp per gallon and apply several (more than 2) times per week. I would monitor the media water ppm content and expect it to be in the 500ppm range.
I would continue this until I could set up a roof or test the tray method to see if the nutrients stay in the trays well enough. (assuming the trays of water are not a mosquito problem). And I suspect I would be satisfied enough that I would not need the roof. (But if I was Renee I would hide this fact and get a greenhouse anyway).

That's what I would do to try to satisfy the yellow leaf problem. Although I suspect the yellow leaves are dropping by normal growth and not a phosphorous problem. Renee sees an increase in leaf drop because the plants have increased their growth. (Still no picture showing an ailing plant).


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> OK
> 
> I think its critical for Renee to get a usable conductivity or TDS meter.
> 
> ...




Hey this is not fun when there is nothing to argue about.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2013)

Rick said:


> Using a TDS meter for measuring sump water is like driving a car, and adjusting gas pedal for the conditions.



Without it it is like bad GPS..... recalculating.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 11, 2013)

gonewild said:


> That's what I would do to try to satisfy the yellow leaf problem. Although I suspect the yellow leaves are dropping by normal growth and not a phosphorous problem. Renee sees an increase in leaf drop because the plants have increased their growth. (Still no picture showing an ailing plant).



I agree... I think it would be a different case if it was new growth was also turning. I'll be interested to see how the new k-lite growth does for her the next couple of years. None of the pics posted have me too concerned. I see no reason for a plant to hold on to old growth if its getting all it needs from its feed. 

I agree with Rick on getting a TDS/pH meter. I think it's super important to know where your at with fertilizer/water levels... especially when you have "problems" that are thought to be related to feed. Important to keep a log too!


----------



## Stone (Mar 12, 2013)

Rick said:


> Using a TDS meter for measuring sump water is like driving a car, and adjusting gas pedal for the conditions.



But of not much use if a standard method is not used each time! You could have totally different figures compared to media water. Depending on the quantity of water in the dish. Then all you really see is if its going up or down but not necessarily what the plant roots are living with.

The standard is to slowly pour through enough water ( 2 HOURS AFTER normal watering -I presume to bring any dried feed back into solution ) to give you 50ml of drainage and measure that. The figures for saturated extract and other methods (labs) will be different, usually lower. If you know your fertilizer well (which you do) you can then work out how much N your plant is getting and make adjustments if needed.

If you measure 100ml drainage you would have half the figure of 50ml but the roots wouldn't.


----------



## Rick (Mar 12, 2013)

Stone said:


> But of not much use if a standard method is not used each time! You could have totally different figures compared to media water. Depending on the quantity of water in the dish. Then all you really see is if its going up or down but not necessarily what the plant roots are living with.
> 
> The standard is to slowly pour through enough water ( 2 HOURS AFTER normal watering -I presume to bring any dried feed back into solution ) to give you 50ml of drainage and measure that. The figures for saturated extract and other methods (labs) will be different, usually lower. If you know your fertilizer well (which you do) you can then work out how much N your plant is getting and make adjustments if needed.
> 
> If you measure 100ml drainage you would have half the figure of 50ml but the roots wouldn't.



I would agree with this procedure if the media actually held up some nutrients (like bark or CHC), but the pass through rate indicates that hold up in the pot is extremely low, and compounded by high rain flush rates. The tray water is as good a monitoring site as anything else. And yes monitoring rise and fall in the tray is the point. This media is meant to wick up into the pot from a sump. So whats in the tray eventually gets to the roots via wicking.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 12, 2013)

What do you think about this? The color change has happened on new growth and no leave have fallen. It's an Epi. capricornu


----------



## gonewild (Mar 12, 2013)

keithrs said:


> What do you think about this? The color change has happened on new growth and no leave have fallen. It's an Epi. capricornu
> ]



What are the little white square things in the leaf axils?


----------



## keithrs (Mar 12, 2013)

gonewild said:


> What are the little white square things in the leaf axils?



I had just got done spreading sluggo when I saw this.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 12, 2013)

keithrs said:


> I had just got done spreading sluggo when I saw this.



You might want to start a new thread for this problem. Since it is on new growth and not old it is a different problem.


----------



## dodidoki (Mar 12, 2013)

keithrs said:


> What do you think about this? The color change has happened on new growth and no leave have fallen. It's an Epi. capricornu




As I wrote before, but noone can hear me, it is typical P deficiancy syndrome.
It is I think because of K lite, it contains very few P, but faster plants need more P. P is a reuptekable nutritient, older leaves turn red, later yellow ands fall down. I advise too, that K-lite formula must be modified increasing P to N/P 13/6 instead of 13/3.


----------



## Rick (Mar 12, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> As I wrote before, but noone can hear me, it is typical P deficiancy syndrome.
> It is I think because of K lite, it contains very few P, but faster plants need more P.



We heard, but this is also not universal for fast growing plants that I have.

I have some very fast/large Cattleyas and Dendrobiums that are putting up beautiful new growth.

As new growth did it start out big and green, and then turn yellow red all at once? Or did it grow all the way to that large size red/yellow from the very start?

I would suspect cold/dry snap to change a full size new growth like that.


----------



## Erythrone (Mar 12, 2013)

I looks like typical P deficiancy to me too.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 12, 2013)

Erythrone said:


> I looks like typical P deficiancy to me too.



So early in this thread P deficiency was described as normal new growth and yellow/red leaves on old growth dropping.

Now it is the opposite?


----------



## Rick (Mar 12, 2013)

gonewild said:


> So early in this thread P deficiency was described as normal new growth and yellow/red leaves on old growth dropping.
> 
> Now it is the opposite?



Exactly.

Under P deficiency, new growth tries to translocate from the old growth. If still insuficient P in the old growth, the new growth would be stunted too. In this case the new growth is bigger than old healthy looking growths.


----------



## Rick (Mar 12, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> As I wrote before, but noone can hear me, it is typical P deficiancy syndrome.
> It is I think because of K lite, it contains very few P, but faster plants need more P. P is a reuptekable nutritient, older leaves turn red, later yellow ands fall down. I advise too, that K-lite formula must be modified increasing P to N/P 13/6 instead of 13/3.



http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28950

So how come this other plant of Keithrs is not deficient?


----------



## dodidoki (Mar 12, 2013)

Rick said:


> http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28950
> 
> So how come this other plant of Keithrs is not deficient?



I just speculated but I mislooked that symptoms began at new growth. Otherwise K-lite works at me, as I wrote to you, my parnatatum started to push up 5 (!!!) new growths... ( I noticed today).


NOTE: deficiency symptoms can be seen if there is something root problem, too....


----------



## Rick (Mar 12, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> NOTE: deficiency symptoms can be seen if there is something root problem, too....



Yes, if no/or poor roots then nutrients don't uptake into plants efficiently.

But could this be the chicken/egg question. Does nutrient imbalance casue poor roots to start with?

Something else to consider with outside grown plants exposed to potentially higher light and lower humidity levels (frequent Southern California conditions), is what is a typical plant response to conserve water?

I don't know about this particular plant of Keiths. It seems like a random outlier compared to his other plants.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 12, 2013)

keithrs said:


> What do you think about this? The color change has happened on new growth and no leave have fallen. It's an Epi. capricornu



I am going to speculate that this plant has been growing outside and in fairly strong light. I also will speculate that this condition has happened since the winter temperatures arrived. Is this close to accurate?

This looks like typical reed stem Epidendrum growing in California garden when it is just almost too cold. Almost too cold for too long.

This is not caused by a nutrient deficiency.
It may be a deficiency but if it is it is caused by environmental conditions.
Maybe the cold temperatures have caused the soft tissues to loose ability to manage nutrient balance.
It could be a virus that shows itself when the plant is weakened by the cold temperatures.


----------



## Stone (Mar 12, 2013)

keithrs said:


> What do you think about this? The color change has happened on new growth and no leave have fallen. It's an Epi. capricornu



There is nothing wrong with this plant. Many of the Laelinae flush red on the new growth in good light. It will eventually turn green. The plant is producing anthocyanin pigment to protect itself from UV light and all quite normal


----------



## keithrs (Mar 12, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I am going to speculate that this plant has been growing outside and in fairly strong light. I also will speculate that this condition has happened since the winter temperatures arrived. Is this close to accurate?


Yes, this plant grows outside. No, this plant doesn't see strong or even fairly strong light. It sit next to my house with my Masd and Draculas. Same place it sat where other growth was put on and this condition didn't show its self. Yes, this condition has set in, in the last month.



> This looks like typical reed stem Epidendrum growing in California garden when it is just almost too cold. Almost too cold for too long.


I have my reed stems are in full sun with not even close to the pigment showing. There more purple than red.



> This is not caused by a nutrient deficiency.
> It may be a deficiency but if it is it is caused by environmental conditions.
> Maybe the cold temperatures have caused the soft tissues to loose ability to manage nutrient balance.
> It could be a virus that shows itself when the plant is weakened by the cold temperatures.


I'm not saying it is... But I have not fertilized pretty much all winter and it very well may be environmental. Very much doubt it is virused.

I posted the pics just to see what the general consciences.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 12, 2013)

Rick said:


> I don't know about this particular plant of Keiths. It seems like a random outlier compared to his other plants.



It is the only plant showing these signs.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 12, 2013)

gonewild said:


> You might want to start a new thread for this problem. Since it is on new growth and not old it is a different problem.



Possibly early klite results?oke:


----------



## gonewild (Mar 12, 2013)

keithrs said:


> Possibly early klite results?oke:



In that case I absolutely love the beautiful red foliage. :drool:

Or lets; try this one.....



keithrs said:


> But I have not fertilized pretty much all winter



In order to blame K-lite the requirement is that you take the K-lite out of the can. I think you busted yourself. oke:


----------



## Rick (Mar 12, 2013)

Could it be fungal inoculates??


----------



## keithrs (Mar 12, 2013)

gonewild said:


> In that case I absolutely love the beautiful red foliage. :drool:
> 
> Or lets; try this one.....
> 
> ...



Im not sure I blamed anything for the plants condition, Did I? :wink:


----------



## Stone (Mar 13, 2013)

I feel like I'm pi**ing against the wind....The purple red colours are normal on new growth of SOME plants. (Especially in cool bright weather) The black spots have nothing to do with the colour they are caused by humid cool weather (fungal) and nothing serious and no deficiency. I've seen this a hundred million trillion times over the last 30 years.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 13, 2013)

Stone said:


> I feel like I'm pi**ing against the wind....



Careful not to get any on your shoes....oke:


----------



## rcb (Mar 22, 2013)

Hi all, I'm back home, and wanted to again thank you all for your thoughts and advice.

I have made some changes in my fertilizing, increased concentration to 150ppm and will do the best I can to fertilize at least one more day a week, and managed to find some bone meal, which was more difficult than it should have been. I'm going to try sprinkling some bonemeal on a few plants, and watch and see.

Again thank you.


----------



## Ray (Apr 1, 2013)

An interesting read...

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/42/7/1563.full.pdf


----------



## dodidoki (Apr 1, 2013)

I feel some contrast between article and Rick's K-lite theory. Anyway when I used conventional fertilizers, plants suffered and died, since I've been using K-lite, plants are nicer, roots are stronger. The message of this article for me that maybe worth to increase carefully K-conc. when plants start to produce flower stem.


----------



## Stone (Apr 1, 2013)

Ray said:


> An interesting read...
> 
> http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/42/7/1563.full.pdf



To me this is more evidence that (at least) moderate consentrations of K at say 50% of the N does not cause the problems of Calcium or Magnesium or any other element being inhibited to the extent that it causes a reduction in growth or other problem.


----------



## Stone (Apr 1, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> > Anyway when I used conventional fertilizers, plants suffered and died,
> 
> 
> But its not the fertilizers that made your plants die. It was either the way you used it or some other reason. I almost killed a bunch of gardenias this summer when I applied some pelletized organic fertilizer. They were severely damaged by ammonium toxicity, not the K. Most of the worlds best orchid growers use ''conventional'' fertilizers, but at very low consentration.


----------



## Rick (Apr 1, 2013)

I saw this one a ways back.

How come all my stuff is still alive?? Especially my phales?

Maybe the high nitrogen thing is a clue, since I also don't add a ton of nitrogen.


----------



## Rick (Apr 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> dodidoki said:
> 
> 
> > But its not the fertilizers that made your plants die........ They were severely damaged by ammonium toxicity
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 1, 2013)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > ?????
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 1, 2013)

Rick said:


> > Maybe the high nitrogen thing is a clue, since I also don't add a ton of nitrogen.[/
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> To me this is more evidence that (at least) moderate consentrations of K at say 50% of the N does not cause the problems of Calcium or Magnesium or any other element being inhibited to the extent that it causes a reduction in growth or other problem.



But look at how they are growing.
In perfectly controlled greenhouses. Their aim is to force the plants to grow as fast as possible.
They have no data as to the long term effect on the plant health.
We have always known that feeding maximum amounts will grow plants bigger and faster.... but does it cause a certain percentage of plants to burn out and die or become disease problems.
Remember their crops go to the mass market and then most die within a year.

Their trial used excessive amounts of nutrients. 200ppm N and 200ppm P ???
They do not mention supplying any micro nutrients (or did my fast read miss this?)

They did not consider that the different nutrient ratios might effect K. Like excess P?

They used hydroponic nutrient levels as a basis and that is fine if you are a commercial grower trying to turn over your benches as fast as possible.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 1, 2013)

Rick said:


> I saw this one a ways back.
> 
> How come all my stuff is still alive?? Especially my phales?
> 
> Maybe the high nitrogen thing is a clue, since I also don't add a ton of nitrogen.



Increase the N and you must increase everything else. But remember they are forcing their crop.

Your plants are still alive and I doubt any of theirs are.

You have to remember the big growers do not want or intend the plants they sell to live forever. They grow them fast and cheap and the only way they can stay in business is if people discard the plants and buy another one.


----------



## Stone (Apr 1, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > We have always known that feeding maximum amounts will grow plants bigger and faster.... but does it cause a certain percentage of plants to burn out and die or become disease problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Apr 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Just trying to point to the ratios.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Apr 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Too much at one time!
> ...


----------



## ALToronto (Apr 2, 2013)

There are so many flaws in this study, the results can be applied only to a very narrow set of conditions. The researchers severely underwatered the bark mix plants (compared to sphagnum plants), the bark mix was far too acidic with peat moss and no charcoal, the N concentration was too high, and there was no mention of 'flushing' the media with pure water from time to time.

There is no mention of any corporate sponsor, but I wonder if a fertilizer manufacturer provided some $$ or other resources for this study. It's as if they're trying to justify using as much fert as the plants will tolerate.


----------



## Stone (Apr 2, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> There are so many flaws in this study, the results can be applied only to a very narrow set of conditions. The researchers severely underwatered the bark mix plants (compared to sphagnum plants), the bark mix was far too acidic with peat moss and no charcoal, the N concentration was too high, and there was no mention of 'flushing' the media with pure water from time to time.
> 
> There is no mention of any corporate sponsor, but I wonder if a fertilizer manufacturer provided some $$ or other resources for this study. It's as if they're trying to justify using as much fert as the plants will tolerate.



All that may be true but even with those shortcommings the study was about the effect of increasing or decreasing the K levels and the results of that. I doubt whether acidity or more or less water would have given different results. I admit I didn't read it all.
Just had another quick look. One curious thing about it is why on earth the decision to have equal parts N and P! I believe you need to increase K to balance such high P consentrations. So that may also be a factor. The pH of sphag and sphag peat when I have mesured it was always around 4 for both or maybe a touch lower for the peat so I think there are comparable.


----------



## Ray (Apr 2, 2013)

The more I study plant nutrition as it applies to epiphytes, the more obvious (but not necessarily clearly defined) it is that too much of anything disrupts the plants' absorption of other things, leading to an imbalance.

You want to push the crap out of plants to sell 'em? Go ahead, but don't expect them to hang around for long.

Eat several thousand calories a day to become a football guard, and you'll likely have a life span of 40-50 years. Take a plant that naturally might get 15 ppm nutrition on a daily basis, and push it to a couple thousand? You decide.


----------



## dodidoki (Apr 2, 2013)

Rick, I don't understand following: K-lite does not cause K-deficiency symptoms, leastwise at you and at me ( I mean at our plants), but there were significant deficiency symptoms at test-phalas. How could it be? Maybe high cc. of N and P caused very intensive growing and in this relation cc. of K was very low??? ( clue word is "relation") N was 200 ppm, P 200 ppm, but K-lite is all 150 ppm.


----------



## dodidoki (Apr 2, 2013)

Yes, my thought is similar, article gives a receipt how to make "body-builder" plants and suggests that K is the "protein" for plants.


----------



## Rick (Apr 2, 2013)

Stone said:


> All that may be true but even with those shortcommings the study was about the effect of increasing or decreasing the K levels and the results of that. I doubt whether acidity or more or less water would have given different results. I admit I didn't read it all.
> Just had another quick look. One curious thing about it is why on earth the decision to have equal parts N and P! I believe you need to increase K to balance such high P consentrations. So that may also be a factor. The pH of sphag and sphag peat when I have mesured it was always around 4 for both or maybe a touch lower for the peat so I think there are comparable.



Also it is impossible to increase/decrease a cation (Ca K Mg Na) without increasing some anion, or substituting one cation/anion pair for another.

In order to make K lite, Calcium and magnesium nitrate was substituted for the bulk of potassium nitrate in the system. So in this case, N (as the nitrate anion) was kept fairly contstant while Ca and Mg went up (substituting for K).

For someone to make fertilizer formulations with drastic changes in K, you must also see some pretty drastic changes in some other major ion. So what cation got substituted for the K salt when it was taken out? Or what anion was piled on? When I reviewed this paper this info wasn't obvious, and since no one sees lethal K deficiency in that short of time, I didn't think the paper was relevant.


----------



## Rick (Apr 2, 2013)

dodidoki said:


> N was 200 ppm, P 200 ppm, but K-lite is all 150 ppm.



Exactly I don't think any deficiencies were generated, but lethal toxic responses.

200 ppm of ammonia N is highly toxic to just about all organisms (unless you keep the pH very low). You can't even keep waste water nitrifiers alive in a treatment plant at that concentration of ammonia if the pH is up in the high 7's. If you have 200ppm of nitrate did a portion shift to nitrite (also very toxic material that plants and bacteria assimilate at a fairly fast rate, but only at low starting concentrations). I don't know what the P tolerance to orchids is, but that is well beyond environmental relevance.

You often can't balance your way out of flat out overdose situations.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620100909/abstract (if you don't believe that ammonia is toxic to plants).


----------



## Rick (Apr 2, 2013)

Ray said:


> The more I study plant nutrition as it applies to epiphytes, the more obvious (but not necessarily clearly defined) it is that too much of anything disrupts the plants' absorption of other things, leading to an imbalance.



Yup, and I keep finding that the bulk of what we end up feeding just feeds the potting mix flora creating a big pot management program rather than an orchid growing program.


----------



## Stone (Apr 2, 2013)

Rick said:


> Yup, and I keep finding that the bulk of what we end up feeding just feeds the potting mix flora creating a big pot management program rather than an orchid growing program.



There is no option but to feed the potting mix flora in an organic mix. Whatever N is given to the plant will be stolen by the decomposing bacteria until they have enough for their needs and the plant gets what is left over. Therefore we must determine roughly how much N (mainly) is used by the bacteria, give that and give whatever the plant can use as extra.
What I found curious about the phal trial was that the sphag plants were very slow to show deficiency compared to the bark-which would indicate a higher K supply from the moss or a higher availability or CEC, Yet, the sphag plants also showed a huge spike in growth and flowering with increasing K compared to the bark plants. So whats going on there?


----------



## Rick (Apr 3, 2013)

Stone said:


> There is no option but to feed the potting mix flora in an organic mix.



Not true.

Nitrate is only utilized by anaerobes. If you keep the potting mix aerobic and operate in the 5.5-6.5 pH, with low alkalinity and low TDS you can starve the microflora into a manageable population. Feeding lots of ammonia and shoveling in bicarbonate to accommodate the pH drop, and you turn the matrix into a waste treatment plant.


----------



## Rick (Apr 3, 2013)

Stone said:


> What I found curious about the phal trial was that the sphag plants were very slow to show deficiency compared to the bark-which would indicate a higher K supply from the moss or a higher availability or CEC, Yet, the sphag plants also showed a huge spike in growth and flowering with increasing K compared to the bark plants. So whats going on there?



Like I said, its all a bunch of pot management gyrations at these crazy levels of feed.

Now in the wild, all phalaes are obligate epiphytes. I keep most of my phalaes on mounts, and they have never done better since going low K. But before low K I could not keep a phalae alive in a pot to save my life. Moss or bark mixes. Usually dead in a year or less, and that was with high K. So whats going on there?


----------



## Stone (Apr 3, 2013)

Rick said:


> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Apr 3, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Not true.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Apr 3, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> There is no mention of any corporate sponsor, but I wonder if a fertilizer manufacturer provided some $$ or other resources for this study. It's as if they're trying to justify using as much fert as the plants will tolerate.



I was acused of research bias with support of the low K principal (since it ultimately led to development of a commercial product), and I don't even make/sell fertilizer. Plenty of research (bad and good) happens in this country without corporatate support. 

The commercial orchid fertilizer market is chump change in comparison to the agriculture market, they (try to even identify a single giant corporate entitie that even messes with orchid fert products) don't need to support orchid research to make a buck.


----------



## Stone (Apr 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> Not true.
> 
> Nitrate is only utilized by anaerobes. If you keep the potting mix aerobic and operate in the 5.5-6.5 pH, with low alkalinity and low TDS you can starve the microflora into a manageable population. Feeding lots of ammonia and shoveling in bicarbonate to accommodate the pH drop, and you turn the matrix into a waste treatment plant.



I had another look at this and it seems you are wrong. To test nitrogen draw-down ( or how much N is used by decomposing bacteria ) One test (very simplified) is to use potassium nitrate poured through the mix and to then test leachate for nitrate after a certain incubation period.
Orchid mixes certainly aren't anaerobic so decomposing bacteria do use nitrate as their N source. So I stand by my comment that you must provide for them with N in an organic mix with a carbon to nitrogen ratio greater than 30 to 1.(which is most of them) They can operate at pH of between 5 and 9 so alkalinity or acidity doesn't really enter the picture. 
If you are talking about the nitrifiers that prefer pH above 6 then yes they can be somewhat starved by low pH and high nitrate but some still are important to help avoid any ammonium toxicity whic may be produced by the decomposers as they break dowm the organic matter. I think we are talking about 2 different groups of bacteria?


----------



## Rick (Apr 5, 2013)

Stone said:


> Orchid mixes certainly aren't anaerobic so decomposing bacteria do use nitrate as their N source.



The core of your porous bark materials can easily go anaerobic. Especially if you have a dense wet mix The decomposing bacteria use the NO3 as a source of oxygen. The amount of N required to make amino acids/proteins for organism growth is a fraction of the nitrate they would consume for "respiration".

Actually you can run the same nitrifying bacteria "backwards" under anoxic systems to convert the nitrate produced in nitrification of ammonia back to N2 gas. (Otherwise known as a sequential batch reactor) so you can nitrify and denitrify in the same physical system, by having both aerobic and anoxic conditions available in proximity. The aquarium people understood this years ago when they started using trickle filters. The highly aerated trickle system converts ammonia to nitrate at a fantastic rate. Then in the sump they would place a lot of fine porous material like lava rock that would develop colonies of denitrifiers in the anoxic core of the rock. This area would need a feed of methanol or sugar solution to supply a carbon source for the denitrifying bacteria to use.

There are other species of bacteria/fungi that denitrify under low O2 conditions, most likely composting your mix with excessive nitrogen available of any form. Then you can also get a lot of blue green algae that can utilize it too.

Are you trying to grow orchids, or how much non-orchid life do you want to support in your pots?

Check out the terms oligotrophic vs eutrophic.


----------



## Rick (Apr 5, 2013)

Stone said:


> If you are talking about the nitrifiers that prefer pH above 6 then yes they can be somewhat starved by low pH




Actually it alkalinity rather than pH that controls nitrifiers, I recently read an article on nitrifiers operating quite efficiently at pH between 4-5. And with using acidic media, but still supplying inputs of bicarbonate ion you can have low pH and still enough alkalinity to nitrify.


----------



## Rick (Apr 5, 2013)

Stone said:


> Orchid mixes certainly aren't anaerobic



We hope not, and that's' certainly the goal. But as I mentioned earlier the pores in your bark matrix certainly go anoxic when respiration occurs. The more open the pot and the mix (going to a mounted condition as the max open/aerobic) the deeper O2 penetrates to the core of the individual pieces of porous bark/CHC/moss, reducing the volume of colonizable space for anoxic nitrate users.

Also the higher the TDS the less O2 water can hold. So salty water in mushy/highly porous material in semi sealed pots makes it easier for composting anoxic bacteria to take over your mix. 

Definitely a foreign habitat for epiphytic and semi epiphytic species.


----------



## Ray (Apr 5, 2013)

Rick said:


> Also the higher the TDS the less O2 water can hold. So salty water in mushy/highly porous material in semi sealed pots makes it easier for composting anoxic bacteria to take over your mix.


that makes me wonder about the relative amounts of oxygen plants get from water versus air.




Ray Barkalow
Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Rick (Apr 5, 2013)

Ray said:


> that makes me wonder about the relative amounts of oxygen plants get from water versus air.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a whole science unto itself. Thin films of water no containment, or semi sealed containers????

Water loves to hang onto CO2, but is relatively stingy about O2. So the bigger issue in pots may be CO2 release from bacterial and nighttime plant respiration rather than O2 uptake. 

The basket system may be as effective as my mounted systems simply because they get the orchid roots exposed to uncontained air, and gas balance is optimal for keeping carbolic acid production to a mnimum.


----------



## likespaphs (Apr 5, 2013)

Rick said:


> Nothing will make it last "forever". Sterilize it and store it in liquid nitrogen if that is your goal.



that made me giggle
:rollhappy:


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Apr 5, 2013)

Rick- at least in salt water reef systems, trickle filters and such have been abandoned as nitrate factories. (Invertebrates are way less tolerant of nitrates than fish.) More nitrate was produced than could be denitrified by anaerobic bacteria. Now filtration is limited to skimming and activated carbon, with lots of "live rock" (coral rubble), loaded with denitrifiers inside the rock. Some also use deep sand beds, up to 6" deep. I keep my sandbed about 3" deep....and I have no nitrate problems. (Of course, I just discarded a tank where the heater broke, and I didn't realize it until almost everything died...I hoped I could recycle it, but the stench was unbelievable.)


----------



## cnycharles (Apr 6, 2013)

ouch


----------



## limuhead (Apr 6, 2013)

You can talk about the science of K-lite, MSU, Peters, Miricle Grow, Fish Emulsion, Bat guano, or any of the dozens, if not hundreds of products all day long. You can analyze it, disect it, run tests on it, hell, you can even write your congressman about it. The bottom line is IS THERE ANY PROOF that it works? Here is how I see it. I am using it after seeing many of my plants do very well on the MSU type fert thrive for years, then slowly decline. I see LOTS of commercial growers push thier plants to get them off the benches and sold, only to have them go downhill after a while. I will let you know in a couple years, because that's how long it will take to know for sure...


----------



## Rick (Apr 6, 2013)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> Now filtration is limited to skimming and activated carbon, with lots of "live rock" (coral rubble), loaded with denitrifiers inside the rock. Some also use deep sand beds, up to 6" deep. I keep my sandbed about 3" deep....and I have no nitrate problems.



Yes moved the system out of the box under the tank to in the tank. Same biology though.

Also compared to a waste treatment system the input load for aquariums is very low, and a greater emphasis on supplemental photosynthesis.

It used to crack me up that the waste water engineers essentially did all the same stuff we do with aquariums, but they put it all to numbers, and get paid a lot more.oke:


----------



## Rick (Apr 6, 2013)

limuhead said:


> I will let you know in a couple years, because that's how long it will take to know for sure...



There is a great deal of correctness to this statement.

I started my plants on low K in May of 2011, so I have almost 2 years on this now. However, I also have plants that "survived" my MSU days for almost 10 years that have improved noticeably (leaves longer/stronger/shinier) within a few months. The other effect that is "fast" is seedling material and time from flask to bloom. Several of us have reported in the past high seedling mortality and maturity times on the order of 6-7 years. Now my mortality rate on new flasks in the last 2 years is virtually 0 with stuff making it to blooming size by 2 years.

But yes we'll need to wait 5 or more years before saying for sure.


----------



## Rick (Apr 6, 2013)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> (Invertebrates are way less tolerant of nitrates than fish.)



I don't do much toxicity testing with salt water organisms, but I do nitrite and nitrate testing on freshwater fish and inverts, and inverts are more sensitive.

Nitrate is kind of interesting in that acutely its not very toxic. Short term LC50's are on the order of 200ppm. But chronically it causes growth or reproductive inhibition down around 20mg/L N. The inverts more sensitive. I do lots of testing with nitrate impacted waste waters, and the inverts always go down first.

Now I recall lots of speculation on lateral line disease and stuff like that so ultra-chronically I wouldn't be surprised that fish would show more secondary effects from lower levels of nitrate.

Also nitrate (and nitrite) toxicity is effected by hardness and TDS, with increasing hardness and TDS (even just from NaCl) reducing toxicity.


----------



## limuhead (Apr 18, 2013)

*The proof is in the pudding*

OK, after reading the K-lite articles several times I noticed a few things. First and foremost, to my understanding there were too many different variables- adding dolomite, epsom salts, well water(more calcium), and bone meal, along with using K-lite made drastic improvements, so realistically you can not give credit to K-lite for those improvements. I looked up potassium toxicity and poisoning in orchids, and found nothing conclusive other than references to the AOS article and posts on slippertalk(or references from other sites referring to ST). I am no scientist so I decided to talk to 3 of the best commercial growers in Hawaii. All of them are using an 'MSU' type fert at slightly different dilutions ranging from 150 ppm down to 50 ppm. They grow all types of orchids, including paphs and phrags and without question have some of the best looking, healthiest orchids I have ever seen. When I mentioned low K one said don't believe everything you hear/read and the other 2 laughed at me. Not only do they not believe in potassium toxicity they ADD substancial amounts of potassium to thier fert regularly, and have for years! I think that the real key to success with ANY type of fert is getting the proportions and Ph right. The formulation of Potassium nitrate they are adding is 13.7 - 0 - 46.3, adding it to a 15 - 5 - 15, at the low end 20%. So now I am adding my K-lite 50/50 with the 13.7-0-46.3. The key, as it was explained to me, is that the use of epsom salts, dolomite, and calicum nitrate in the proper proportions and timing will effectively adjust the Ph to the proper range and your plants will uptake the nutrients they need in the proper amounts. Two biologists and one farmer with almost 100 years combined experience between them, with over 500 registered hybrids, over 100 AOS awards, growing the BEST plants I have EVER seen must know something. I will be going to the nurseries where the extra potassium programs are in place and posting pictures over the next few weeks.


----------



## limuhead (Apr 18, 2013)

Oh, if you are interested in the other fert they add it is called K Plus...


----------



## limuhead (Apr 18, 2013)

Here are a few pics of plants using added K, more to follow




Onc. ampliatum, about 5 feet tall, bulbs the size of a grapefruit



C. gaslelliana compot



another angle of the same compot


----------



## Stone (Apr 18, 2013)

limuhead said:


> OK, after reading the K-lite articles several times I noticed a few things. First and foremost, to my understanding there were too many different variables- adding dolomite, epsom salts, well water(more calcium), and bone meal, along with using K-lite made drastic improvements, so realistically you can not give credit to K-lite for those improvements. I looked up potassium toxicity and poisoning in orchids, and found nothing conclusive other than references to the AOS article and posts on slippertalk(or references from other sites referring to ST). I am no scientist so I decided to talk to 3 of the best commercial growers in Hawaii. All of them are using an 'MSU' type fert at slightly different dilutions ranging from 150 ppm down to 50 ppm. They grow all types of orchids, including paphs and phrags and without question have some of the best looking, healthiest orchids I have ever seen. When I mentioned low K one said don't believe everything you hear/read and the other 2 laughed at me. Not only do they not believe in potassium toxicity they ADD substancial amounts of potassium to thier fert regularly, and have for years! I think that the real key to success with ANY type of fert is getting the proportions and Ph right. The formulation of Potassium nitrate they are adding is 13.7 - 0 - 46.3, adding it to a 15 - 5 - 15, at the low end 20%. So now I am adding my K-lite 50/50 with the 13.7-0-46.3. The key, as it was explained to me, is that the use of epsom salts, dolomite, and calicum nitrate in the proper proportions and timing will effectively adjust the Ph to the proper range and your plants will uptake the nutrients they need in the proper amounts. Two biologists and one farmer with almost 100 years combined experience between them, with over 500 registered hybrids, over 100 AOS awards, growing the BEST plants I have EVER seen must know something. I will be going to the nurseries where the extra potassium programs are in place and posting pictures over the next few weeks.


0 0h...............Pass me the pop corn...


----------



## Cheyenne (Apr 18, 2013)

Yes, please keep the pictures coming. This is very interesting. I can't wait to hear the replies.


----------



## Ray (Apr 18, 2013)

First, let me comment that my understanding of the low-K concept relates to avoiding a long-term problem, not the enhancement of any type of growth.

The fact that those commercial growers don't use Low-K regimens or even add K doesn't mean that that is the reason the example plants ended up the way they were. There is a great deal more going on than the nutritional part. In fact, I have pretty much concluded that, unless you're trying to "push" your plants for sales, that it is one of the least important aspects of orchid culture.

The compot looks typical of a compot: a bunch of little seedlings get established and then BOOM, the growth begins at a greater rate due to the overall vigor of the plants. I've seen that in compots that were not fed at all.

I think it's a great idea to remain skeptical until things prove themselves out - one way or another. "Buying in" or "writing off" something without giving it a try is often a mistake.


----------



## cnycharles (Apr 18, 2013)

there is something to be said about growing plants in the perfect climate.... people growing under lights and windowsills have a very different situation than someone using a shadehouse in hawaii where those island breezes are moving all the time; heck i'd be smiling to beat all if I were laying underneath a shadecloth in hawaii, no matter what someone was feeding me! 

it's true that plant nutrition is all about balances. since there are lots of people who grow well and use all sorts of fertilizers, fitting things together properly for the overall conditions is very important. some do it by accident, some by trial and error and observation


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

*"don't believe everything you hear/read "*



limuhead said:


> > OK, after reading the K-lite articles several times I noticed a few things. First and foremost, to my understanding there were too many different variables- adding dolomite, epsom salts, well water(more calcium), and bone meal, along with using K-lite made drastic improvements, so realistically you can not give credit to K-lite for those improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

limuhead said:


> OK, after reading the K-lite articles several times I noticed a few things. First and foremost, to my understanding there were too many different variables- adding dolomite, epsom salts, well water(more calcium), and bone meal, along with using K-lite made drastic improvements, so realistically you can not give credit to K-lite for those improvements. I looked up potassium toxicity and poisoning in orchids, and found nothing conclusive other than references to the AOS article and posts on slippertalk(or references from other sites referring to ST). I am no scientist so I decided to talk to 3 of the best commercial growers in Hawaii. All of them are using an 'MSU' type fert at slightly different dilutions ranging from 150 ppm down to 50 ppm. They grow all types of orchids, including paphs and phrags and without question have some of the best looking, healthiest orchids I have ever seen. When I mentioned low K one said don't believe everything you hear/read and the other 2 laughed at me. Not only do they not believe in potassium toxicity they ADD substancial amounts of potassium to thier fert regularly, and have for years! I think that the real key to success with ANY type of fert is getting the proportions and Ph right. The formulation of Potassium nitrate they are adding is 13.7 - 0 - 46.3, adding it to a 15 - 5 - 15, at the low end 20%. So now I am adding my K-lite 50/50 with the 13.7-0-46.3. The key, as it was explained to me, is that the use of epsom salts, dolomite, and calicum nitrate in the proper proportions and timing will effectively adjust the Ph to the proper range and your plants will uptake the nutrients they need in the proper amounts. Two biologists and one farmer with almost 100 years combined experience between them, with over 500 registered hybrids, over 100 AOS awards, growing the BEST plants I have EVER seen must know something. I will be going to the nurseries where the extra potassium programs are in place and posting pictures over the next few weeks.



You are like all of us succumbing to the science of what created MSU in the first place. Focusing on the exceptional successes rather than the failures. 

I'm no exception to this trend and used MSU religously for 8+ years, and also had (still have) a handful of exceptional individuals. Also I have seen over the years lots of successes that didn't involve high K fertilizing, and probably the most "success" is review of plants growing in the jungle with virtually no K available. Growers gravitate towards success and want to emulate that success. But we usually forget all the failures in the process, and we tend to create growing systems/conditions by which we perpetuate success in a very narrow range of species and hybrids that adapt to what we offer instead of adapting to the plants needs. 

I here/heard it all the time on this forum and many others. "I can't grow..." "I can only grow adults of this.... but not from seedling." "You aren't a real grower until you've killed your weight in plants". I've heard it all for years, and got the same old answers/excuses about pot management, bad genetics, just a tough species so give up, and needs mycorrhizae. And in the meantime we justify the use of unnatural growing methods by pointing to the handful of exceptional successes.

So I'd be the first to aggree that there's more than one way to grow an orchid, I was just offering an alternative to the same old way of doing things to that weren't fixing the failures. Those successful growers are more than welcome to continue to use what works for them. Many more than myself are laughing when we see our own turnarounds and successes by not useing their methods.


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> plants growing in the jungle with virtually no K available.


That statement is wrong. There is plenty of potassium available to plants growing in the jungle.


----------



## eteson (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> That statement is wrong. There is plenty of potassium available to plants growing in the jungle.



Hi David, could you explain where?


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

eteson said:


> Hi David, could you explain where?



The same place the nitrogen, calcium etc. come from - decaying plant material.

http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JPESR/pdf/2012/may/Ndakara.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/20702620.2011.639506#preview
http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/foster/PDFs/Turner_et_al_2007_JTropEcol.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101921872713


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> That statement is wrong. There is plenty of potassium available to plants growing in the jungle.



How much is "plenty"?
Do orchids grow in a spot where there is a high level (excess) of potassium?

btw.... what is a jungle? (serious ?)


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> The same place the nitrogen, calcium etc. come from - decaying plant material.
> 
> http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JPESR/pdf/2012/may/Ndakara.pdf
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/20702620.2011.639506#preview
> ...



What about the orchids that grow above the decaying plant material?


----------



## eteson (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> The same place the nitrogen, calcium etc. come from - decaying plant material.
> 
> http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JPESR/pdf/2012/may/Ndakara.pdf
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/20702620.2011.639506#preview
> ...



Hi david, Many thanks for the articles. Seem to me a very interesting readings.
I have to read it in detail before having a formed opinion but the steamflow really seems to be "plenty" of K.


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> How much is "plenty"?
> Do orchids grow in a spot where there is a high level (excess) of potassium?


Tell me what Rick means when he says that there is "virtually no K available" and then I will tell you how much is "plenty". 



> btw.... what is a jungle? (serious ?)


I was quoting Rick so you should ask him.


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> What about the orchids that grow above the decaying plant material?



Orchids growing floating above the forest canopy? I have never heard of that.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> The same place the nitrogen, calcium etc. come from - decaying plant material.
> 
> What you need to realize is where orchids actually grow. Not many species are terrestrial in dense forests of large trees. Leaf litter samples are going to have higher nutrient levels than exists in the canopy where most "jungle" orchids locate.
> The greatest majority of orchid species are not in the "jungle" they grow in more open areas.....Why?
> ...


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> DavidCampen said:
> 
> 
> > The same place the nitrogen, calcium etc. come from - decaying plant material.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Orchids growing floating above the forest canopy? I have never heard of that.



You have never seen orchids growing in the wild. They certainly grow above most of the decaying vegetation.

All the downfall and throughfall studies look at what accumulates below the canopy. Orchids that grow in the canopy do not benefit from what hits the ground. 

How many orchid species grow on the ground in the litter at the base of a large tree?


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Tell me what Rick means when he says that there is "virtually no K available" and then I will tell you how much is "plenty".
> 
> 
> I was quoting Rick so you should ask him.



I was interested to know what you imagine a jungle to be not what Rick means.

Is there a difference between a forest and a jungle?


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I was interested to know what you imagine a jungle to be not what Rick means.
> 
> Is there a difference between a forest and a jungle?



I will let you play word games with yourself, enjoy.


----------



## limuhead (Apr 18, 2013)

Ok, I am glad to see posts about this subject, pro and con are valid in my opinion. The point I would like to make is this: You can use just about anything in the right proportions providing you do the following; eliminate excess salts, adjust Ph properly, provide air to the roots. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. There is also such a thing as not enough of a good thing. Balance is the key. I have used Miricle Grow with great success. I have had plants that did great mounted on tree with little more than tap water. I jumped on the band wagon and spent some money as an experiment. After seeing the results of going in pretty much the opposite direction, for many years, not a one or two year experiment I am skeptical about a new product. Notice I said skeptical, not opposed to, against, or anything negative. Time will tell, and that is the only real, hard evidence...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > I was talking about nutrient flux in the trees.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> I will let you play word games with yourself, enjoy.



Chicken?


----------



## limuhead (Apr 18, 2013)

Ray said:


> First, let me comment that my understanding of the low-K concept relates to avoiding a long-term problem, not the enhancement of any type of growth.
> 
> The fact that those commercial growers don't use Low-K regimens or even add K doesn't mean that that is the reason the example plants ended up the way they were. There is a great deal more going on than the nutritional part. In fact, I have pretty much concluded that, unless you're trying to "push" your plants for sales, that it is one of the least important aspects of orchid culture.
> 
> ...



Thank you Ray! That is exactly the point that I am making. One of the Nurseries I am talking about has been in business for 30+ years. I don't think they would be around for that long pushing plants only to have them crash when end consumers got them in thier hands. The plants I have been working on, buying to raise for my own breeding stock, and growing from compot to sell at local shows and online have never looked better.


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Personally I don't think any of the nutrient tests that have been done answer the question one way or the other. The answer is in the results of the K-lite grower tests.


There we agree - this is no scientific evidence to support the use of "K-Lite" (more accurately "KP-Lite") in preference to the more commonly used fertilizers like the MSU or DynaGro formulations. There are only a few anecdotal reports in support of "K-Lite".


----------



## limuhead (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > There we agree - this is no scientific evidence to support the use of "K-Lite" (more accurately "KP-Lite") in preference to the more commonly used fertilizers like the MSU or DynaGro formulations. There are only a few anecdotal reports in support of "K-Lite".
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > There we agree - this is no scientific evidence to support the use of "K-Lite" (more accurately "KP-Lite") in preference to the more commonly used fertilizers like the MSU or DynaGro formulations. There are only a few anecdotal reports in support of "K-Lite".
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

limuhead said:


> DavidCampen said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 'scientific evidence', in favor of or against, will be seen in the next few years. Time is the only way to tell with pretty much anything concerning orchids due to the relative slow growth. I am encouraged by the fact that people are involved and passionate about this subject...
> ...


----------



## limuhead (Apr 18, 2013)

I am using it. I have a section of my greenhouse dedicated to it as a matter of fact. I bought a 2 lb as a sample from Ray and afterwards I bought a 25 lb bag. I am doing research on it as we speak. I am neither in favor of it or against it. I am just trying out different approaches to see what works...


----------



## ALToronto (Apr 18, 2013)

Can't comment on success with orchids - I just started using K-lite - but my anthuriums have taken off. A new flower spike emerging at the base now grows 5-10 mm per day. You can practically watch them grow. Can't wait till my orchids do the same.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild;420212Study done on large trees to determine the nutrient level carried down by heavy rain compared to normal rain. This mineral release affects the tree itself and it's undergrowth. But if there are orchids in this study sphere they probably grow above the study zone in the canopy said:


> I'd like to see the whole paper since it looks at an alternative measure of calculating smaller scale nutrient imput.
> 
> Even though 4 gr of K in the study sounds like "plenty" versus "virtually none", the amount listed is cumulative for a large number of trees and amount of rain. Actual K concentration per unit water still looks to be pretty low relative to the concentration of K per unit water of typical orchid feed. For instance if this was based on a 90+ mm rain event, and the amount of K collected per individual tree was 4000 mg in that rain event (calibrated by sq/Meter of tree trunk) then you have 4000 mg collected in about 100 L of rain with a concentration of 40ppm. If this is the sum for 50+ trees, then divide by another 50 so less than 1 ppm (which conforms well with other research on rainforest stemflow and total flux nutrient concentrations which are rarely more than a few ppm once you reduce hectares per year down to the scale of single plants on a day to day basis.
> 
> Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

limuhead said:


> I am using it. I have a section of my greenhouse dedicated to it as a matter of fact. I bought a 2 lb as a sample from Ray and afterwards I bought a 25 lb bag. I am doing research on it as we speak. I am neither in favor of it or against it. I am just trying out different approaches to see what works...



Perfect!
I got the impression you were mixing it with other fertilizers to raise the K level.

I'm neither in favor or against it either, my interest is understanding how and why plants grow. 

I just don't like to see people discouraged from trying new ideas because there is no "scientific proof". Scientific papers are for scientists to use to write other papers. I have seen, assisted and documented a lot of "scientific" research in South America and the truth is all of it is with fault and error. most researchers are time limited and do what ever it takes to collect enough data... and the biggest problem is they make assumptions to fill in small missing details. Those small details make a difference to someone who wants to grow a plant. So your tests to me carry a lot more value than research done by students assisting a professor or a fertilizer company's tired tech. 

FYI it would be very unique for an old timer grower to actually tell you how the grow their plants. They may laugh at your new ideas and you will never know that they are actually trying your idea. You will never know! Maybe old Hawaiians are more into helping their competition but I doubt it. :wink:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> Can't comment on success with orchids - I just started using K-lite - but my anthuriums have taken off. A new flower spike emerging at the base now grows 5-10 mm per day. You can practically watch them grow. Can't wait till my orchids do the same.



Have you seen them grow equally as well with other fertilizer?

Anthuriums grow in the exact environment as many orchids, side by side. It would be reasonable to think they have similar nutrient requirements. (think not assume)


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> Actual K concentration per unit water still looks to be pretty low relative to the concentration of K per unit water of typical orchid feed. For instance if this was based on a 90+ mm rain event, and the amount of K collected per individual tree was 4000 mg in that rain event (calibrated by sq/Meter of tree trunk) then you have 4000 mg collected in about 100 L of rain with a concentration of 40ppm. If this is the sum for 50+ trees, then divide by another 50 so less than 1 ppm (which conforms well with other research on rainforest stemflow and total flux nutrient concentrations which are rarely more than a few ppm once you reduce hectares per year down to the scale of single plants on a day to day basis.
> 
> Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.


If the K is diluted then all the other nutrients are diluted proportionally and the ratios stay the same. Yes it would have been nice if they had looked at calcium instead of magnesium still the ratio of K to Mg was 2 to 1 to 10 to 1 while KP-Lite is 0.4 to 1. So what ratio of K to Ca do you consider to be "virtually no K" and do you have any references?


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> I'd like to see the whole paper since it looks at an alternative measure of calculating smaller scale nutrient imput.
> 
> Even though 4 gr of K in the study sounds like "plenty" versus "virtually none", the amount listed is cumulative for a large number of trees and amount of rain. Actual K concentration per unit water still looks to be pretty low relative to the concentration of K per unit water of typical orchid feed. For instance if this was based on a 90+ mm rain event, and the amount of K collected per individual tree was 4000 mg in that rain event (calibrated by sq/Meter of tree trunk) then you have 4000 mg collected in about 100 L of rain with a concentration of 40ppm. If this is the sum for 50+ trees, then divide by another 50 so less than 1 ppm (which conforms well with other research on rainforest stemflow and total flux nutrient concentrations which are rarely more than a few ppm once you reduce hectares per year down to the scale of single plants on a day to day basis.
> 
> Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.



The issue I have with these nutrient flow measurements is how relevant they actually are. They are studying big trees and big trees do not account for a very big percentage of the forest coverage. The canopy cover is from big trees but most of the limbs and foliage don't drain down the trunk. No one has taken into account the K content of the big tree. How much K is leaching from the bark as the water flows down? How much K leaches from leaves and twigs that cover the rest of the canopy? Do all tree species have the same K content? No. I don't think they are collecting data correctly to answer orchid related questions. Why is one tree completely covered in orchids but the 100 right next to it have none? Is that because one has more or less K in it's bark? No one looks at that. Orchids don't grow uniformly through the forest, there has to be a nutrient based reason for that and your low K theory points in the right direction.

Orchids that grow on twigs in low growing trees in the cloud forest do not get dripped on by the canopy. They are exposed to the open sky. Their roots do not catch a significant amount of organic matter. Where does their K come from and how does it relate to downfall and flow through? Maybe they get it from the tiny mosses and lichens that grow with them....but where do the mosses get the K?
Not needing very much K comes close to answering that question.


----------



## eteson (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> Also would have liked to see the Ca amounts calculated too, but that's pretty typical for rainforest studies to just have 1 or 2 of the minerals in question looked at. Comprehensive data is very rare.



First of all I have to say that I´ve started to test K-lite recently to feed some of my plants. Your point of view is very interesting and resulted eye opening to me... but i am still concerned about K deficiencies. So, I´ve started to read some literature about plant nutrition.

In the article of Ndakara 2012 it is shown:

*Stemflow (mg*l-¹)*
Nitrogen 0.55
Phosphorus 0.39
Potassium 11.31
Calcium 6.18
Sodium 0.42
Magnesium 4.40

http://www.onlineresearchjournals.org/JPESR/pdf/2012/may/Ndakara.pdf

The K/N ratio and even the K/Ca ratio seem to me very high... What do you think?


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

eteson said:


> First of all I have to say that I´ve started to test K-lite recently to feed some of my plants. Your point of view is very interesting and resulted eye opening to me... but i am still concerned about K deficiencies. So, I´ve started to read some literature about plant nutrition.
> 
> In the article of Ndakara 2012 it is shown:
> 
> ...



Consider.....

1. This study was done in Nigeria......What can be trusted from Nigeria?
2. They studied Avacado trees on a farm.... not representing Natural conditions.
3. Avacados are one of the top 10 foods with the highest Potassium content.... You would expect avacado trees to also be high in potassium and thus any leaching from the tree would be high in potassium. Likely tons of avacado fruit falls and rots below the trees depositing potassium in the soil/litter.


----------



## eteson (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Consider.....
> 
> 1. This study was done in Nigeria......What can be trusted from Nigeria?
> 2. They studied Avacado trees on a farm.... not representing Natural conditions.
> 3. Avacados are one of the top 10 foods with the highest Potassium content.... You would expect avacado trees to also be high in potassium and thus any leaching from the tree would be high in potassium. Likely tons of avacado fruit falls and rots below the trees depositing potassium in the soil/litter.




I would consider 2 and 3... I am living in a not developped country and I am working in science... :wink: Scientific method is universal and the study is published in a peer reviewed publication.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Consider.....
> 
> 1. This study was done in Nigeria......What can be trusted from Nigeria?



This is, unfortunately, a definite factor in any study from that location!


----------



## DavidCampen (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Why is one tree completely covered in orchids but the 100 right next to it have none? Is that because one has more or less K in it's bark? No one looks at that. Orchids don't grow uniformly through the forest, there has to be a nutrient based reason for that and your low K theory points in the right direction.


There are a variety of reasons for this, some trees produce organic substances to inhibit things from growing on them. But if you want a nutrient based theory then why pick K, perhaps it is N, Ca or P. 



> Orchids that grow on twigs in low growing trees in the cloud forest do not get dripped on by the canopy. They are exposed to the open sky. Their roots do not catch a significant amount of organic matter. Where does their K come from and how does it relate to downfall and flow through? Maybe they get it from the tiny mosses and lichens that grow with them....but where do the mosses get the K?
> Not needing very much K comes close to answering that question.


And then the amounts of the other nutrients would also be reduced proportionally. So you are saying that it is not the ratio of the nutrients but the absolute amounts available. So people should just use very dilute MSU formulation.


----------



## ALToronto (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Have you seen them grow equally as well with other fertilizer?
> 
> Anthuriums grow in the exact environment as many orchids, side by side. It would be reasonable to think they have similar nutrient requirements. (think not assume)



No, that's my point - they barely moved with Dyna-Grow. I'm growing them alongside my orchids, so they're getting the same feed and growing conditions. I even planted them in lava rock, just like most of my orchids.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

eteson said:


> I would consider 2 and 3... I am living in a not developped country and I am working in science... :wink: Scientific method is universal and the study is published in a peer reviewed publication.



I live more than half the year in rural parts of Peru so I now well about un developed countries. I was not referring to the level of Nigeria but rather to the fact that Nigeria is flooding the world with fraudulent materials. Perhaps you are not exposed to the problem in your country but Nigeria has a bad reputation to the point we can not automatically believe anything they publish. The entire paper they published leads a person to assume the tests were done in a remote wild forest and it was not.

Read the last sentence and he recommends planting avacado trees in deforested rainforest....

_"It is therefore suggested that, growing of P. gratissima should be encouraged in the deforested rainforest areas, to ensure sustainable tree stands in the ecosystem"._

What this paper does is to justify the clearing of native rainforests to plant groves of Avacado trees for commercial production. It is recommended by a published paper so the Nigerian government has an excuse to clear more rainforest. There are many more better species to use for reforestation and suggesting Avacado is good because the trees provide nutrients for the soil is....... (a Nigerian scam). (No offense to the country or author)

Besides my negative opinion above the data in the paper does not apply well to orchids.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

http://cires.colorado.edu/limnology/pubs/pdfs/Pub106.pdf

Because water flows downhill to streams


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> There are a variety of reasons for this, some trees produce organic substances to inhibit things from growing on them.



Or an excess of K.



> But if you want a nutrient based theory then why pick K, perhaps it is N, Ca or P.



Because K is the last letter in NPK. :rollhappy:

It was not a random choice. Rick focused on K based on his experience with it's toxicity to microbes. For decades we (growers) have tweaked the levels of nutrients and found a happy place. But as far as I know no one ever considered the drastic reduction of K since we all believed K was a major nutrient. Almost all other combinations have been tried and did not yield the results that low K is producing.



> And then the amounts of the other nutrients would also be reduced proportionally. So you are saying that it is not the ratio of the nutrients but the absolute amounts available. So people should just use very dilute MSU formulation.



No not suggesting that at all. I think I have maintained it is all about the ratio between the nutrients. It appears that K needs to be low in the balance. If you apply maximum amounts it appears that orchid plants indulge on K and become obese and are subject to health problems. 

For years (40) I used basically the MSU formula and tried almost every possible combo of nutrient ratios. The only real positive improvements was when I doubled the N using Calcium Nitrate. On a lot of plant types growth was better but I credited the extra N and Ca for the improvement. Now I see it was probably from the lower ratio of K. I never tried to lower the K because I based my fertilizer mix on Potassium Nitrate and I assumed K was a major nutrient that would not hurt plants if it was present in excess. I also personally ate a ton of sugar back then.....not now.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> No, that's my point - they barely moved with Dyna-Grow. I'm growing them alongside my orchids, so they're getting the same feed and growing conditions. I even planted them in lava rock, just like most of my orchids.




OK I just wanted to clarify that the growth you are seeing from K-lite is better than the growth you had before. Your observation as your opinion of this fact is what we all want to hear.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> The issue I have with these nutrient flow measurements is how relevant they actually are. They are studying big trees and big trees do not account for a very big percentage of the forest coverage. Not needing very much K comes close to answering that question.



Actually that's one reason I focused on leaf litter data. Especially with regard to forest paphs. Since the amount of K available in soils (especially karst based) is very low (relative to fertilizer concentrations) the primary pool of K (and other nutrients) is in the leaf litter. As the leaves break down and rain goes through it, the trees move it back up into the tree to be recycled into biomass. The trees with deep roots can access (slowly) additional K for positive growth.

Now leaf litter data is supplied for a karst based rainforest (I believe in Sumatra) in the Orchids article. The ratios of K Ca/Mg do not match MSU. Neither do the majority of live leaf tissue data supplied from the Zotz study in Panama.

The "scientific" premise of MSU was that it was derived from leaf tissue studies. However it was not based on wild/jungle/insitu plants but on plants already being fed "balanced fertilizers" under agricultural conditions. 

From other literature sources we also know that plants will pick up K in excess of need, and that it reduces the plants capability to pick up Ca and Mg. 

So how do leaf litter and live leaf studies of insitu rainforest plants end up with less K than Ca when GH plants end up with more K than Ca getting fed "balanced" fert formulas?


----------



## eteson (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> From other literature sources we also know that plants will pick up K in excess of need, and that it reduces the plants capability to pick up Ca and Mg.



That is the main point why I decided to start testing K-lite.

I am growing Phragmipedium kovachii in a calcite+dolomite based substrate but surprisingly the plants are showing some sintoms o calcium deficiency... now I am begining to think that the excess of K of my former fertilizer was blocking the calcium...


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

eteson said:


> That is the main point why I decided to start testing K-lite.
> 
> I am growing Phragmipedium kovachii in a calcite+dolomite based substrate but surprisingly the plants are showing some sintoms o calcium deficiency... now I am begining to think that the excess of K of my former fertilizer was blocking the calcium...



That's exactly what got me scratching my head in the first place doing the same thing for all the "calcareous paphs".

Actually it was K toxicity to higher life forms (not microbes) in aquatic systems that got me to look at this from a toxicity (inhibition) standpoint.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> So how do leaf litter and live leaf studies of insitu rainforest plants end up with less K than Ca when GH plants end up with more K than Ca getting fed "balanced" fert formulas?



Perhaps because in the rainforest the roots are in contact with solid Ca rich materials where in a greenhouse Ca is mainly supplied via liquid fertilizers. 
Rainforest plants may be better at taking in Ca from solid sources as opposed to liquid by design where K comes to the plant in leached liquid from naturally in the rainflow.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> Actually it was K toxicity to higher life forms (not microbes) in aquatic systems that got me to look at this from a toxicity (inhibition) standpoint.



Are you saying that mussels are not microbes?


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Perhaps because in the rainforest the roots are in contact with solid Ca rich materials where in a greenhouse Ca is mainly supplied via liquid fertilizers.
> Rainforest plants may be better at taking in Ca from solid sources as opposed to liquid by design where K comes to the plant in leached liquid from naturally in the rainflow.



This doesn't hold up for epiphytic species, which were the point of the Zotz study (no roots attached to solid rock, and plants dependent on stem flow water).

Limestone is also impoverished in K. So leaf litter over Karst is actually overrepresented in K relative to the underlying geology.

Similar trends noted for leaf tissue over serpentine which is low in both Ca and K, but plants ended up with more Ca than K or Mg (the mineral more abundant in serpentine).

Somewhere in the pile is leaf litter data over granit. This leaf litter also isn't predominantly high in K despite the primary geologic source of K is errroded feldspars found in some granits.

Given rivers flow over the same geologies as the trees access, its very rare to find rivers/creeks/streams high in K.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Are you saying that mussels are not microbes?



Not today:wink:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 18, 2013)

Rick said:


> This doesn't hold up for epiphytic species, which were the point of the Zotz study (no roots attached to solid rock, and plants dependent on stem flow water).



This might depend on the Ca content of what the roots do contact. I don't think we know if tree bark might be a Ca source since Ca does form crystals in wood.



> Given rivers flow over the same geologies as the trees access, its very rare to find rivers/creeks/streams high in K.



Agree, Unless the rivers are moving fresh supplies of K from the mountains above the tree zone.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

gonewild said:


> This might depend on the Ca content of what the roots do contact. I don't think we know if tree bark might be a Ca source since Ca does form crystals in wood.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree, Unless the rivers are moving fresh supplies of K from the mountains above the tree zone.



Ca is present in tropical stem flow water, and is released from decomposing leaf matter. Another perspective to keep in mind is that the mineral component of dry leaves/bark still only acounts for a few percent of the total biomass. Most of whats there is carbon, and not Ca/Mg/K ...... 

Minerals in streams come in at every source (percolated through leaf litter and erroded geology). Because of high rainfall in tropics it is generally dilute anyway. I'm presently sitting on some lowland river data from Pehang, Malaysia, and the conductivity is only 30-40 uS/cm. That's a potential TDS of only 15-20 mg/L, and the Ca/Mg is about 1/3 of that. Given anion to balance, that's not leaving much for K salts.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2013)

http://ican.csme.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Jordan-1980.pdf

Here's a very rare paper that actually has throughfall water concentrations.


----------



## limuhead (Apr 19, 2013)

These are the plants I saw making the fastest improvement. Better than K-lite, MSU, or any other combination. No fert, water every other day...








Under a tree, just natural compost from Lychee leaves, Macadamia nut leaves, and some of both of them put through a shredder.


----------



## Stone (Apr 19, 2013)

I was too tired to read all this paper but the point under ''Saturation Effect'' is interesting. It possibily expains why orchids on low K and ''normal K'' diets may very well have similar levels of K in their tissues or slightly lower in low K-fed plants? ( and I'm sure I read that somewhere) Just because we feed the plants high levels of K doesn't mean uptake will keep increasing forever. But as far as the antagonism with Mg, this may be a more important factor in the rhizosphere and at CE sites than inside the plant?
Oh yes the paper! http://plantcellbiology.masters.grk...ysiology4-Absorption_Of_Mineral_Nutrients.htm
Low K is not advised if ammonium-N is used and Ca and Mg. additions should also be increased


----------



## Rick (Apr 19, 2013)

limuhead said:


> These are the plants I saw making the fastest improvement. Better than K-lite, MSU, or any other combination. No fert, water every other day.



I have a compot of Paph calosum seedlings doing vey well in a shredded leaf mix and no fertilization.

I wouldn't say superior to K lite plants, but doing very well. As typical for a hobby GH I don't have side by sides going of splits of the same flasking.

Right next to this compot of calosum is a compot of henryanums in a regular bark or CHC mix getting K lite. These are growing extremely fast compared to the calosums.

So is the variable species, k lite, potting mix?

The last couple times I got henry seedlings, they did crap with the same mix but MSU.???
So is that variable set genetics, or some unknown/undocumented change in growing conditions like temp/humidity?


----------



## gonewild (Apr 19, 2013)

limuhead said:


> These are the plants I saw making the fastest improvement. Better than K-lite, MSU, or any other combination. No fert, water every other day...
> Under a tree, just natural compost from Lychee leaves, Macadamia nut leaves, and some of both of them put through a shredder.



What are they?
How long have they been planted there?
They are making the fastest improvement compared to what?


----------



## limuhead (Apr 19, 2013)

gonewild said:


> What are they?
> How long have they been planted there?
> They are making the fastest improvement compared to what?



These were the runts of a flask of Phrag longifolium x besseae. hardly any roots so I compotted them. About a month ago I decided to stick them in the compost at the base of a tree. They perked up almost overnight. They are doing pretty good I think. As far as comparing them to what I have some of the same seedlings in 2" pots. Some are getting K-lite, some are getting 15-5-15, some are getting a combo. Kind of a hassle but I am interested in seeing if there really is a difference between ferts. I suspect the improvement is due to high humidity.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 19, 2013)

limuhead said:


> These were the runts of a flask of Phrag longifolium x besseae. hardly any roots so I compotted them. About a month ago I decided to stick them in the compost at the base of a tree. They perked up almost overnight. They are doing pretty good I think. As far as comparing them to what I have some of the same seedlings in 2" pots. Some are getting K-lite, some are getting 15-5-15, some are getting a combo. Kind of a hassle but I am interested in seeing if there really is a difference between ferts. I suspect the improvement is due to high humidity.



OH I thought you posted the pics to show they were growing better with no fertilizer compared to K-lite. But that is not the case.

Why is the humidity higher in the garden than in your ghse?


----------



## limuhead (Apr 19, 2013)

Humidity is higher because the compost is constantly wet/moist because it is about 6-12 inches thick. Kind of like in any natural environment, moisture laiden air is heavier than dryer air. My greenhouse is open on all sides below the benches. The benches are all wire topped, making air movement better as opposed to solid benches. As water/moisture evaporates from the compost into the surrounding air it holds more moisture, closer to the source...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 19, 2013)

limuhead said:


> Humidity is higher because the compost is constantly wet/moist because it is about 6-12 inches thick. Kind of like in any natural environment, moisture laiden air is heavier than dryer air. My greenhouse is open on all sides below the benches. The benches are all wire topped, making air movement better as opposed to solid benches. As water/moisture evaporates from the compost into the surrounding air it holds more moisture, closer to the source...



What is the ambient humidity in your area?


----------



## Rick (Apr 19, 2013)

limuhead said:


> I suspect the improvement is due to high humidity.



Or more explicitely water available at roots. This Phrag does great with wet feet. So dry vs wet could be a huge difference.

As far as low/high K and longifolium comparisons, I have a big longifolium in a 8or 10 inch pot for several years.

Always thought it was doing good up until going low K. Leaves got 20% longer and don't see burned leaf tips any more. Leaves also darker, and firmer substance. I haven't seen any significant change in blooming characteristics (which I always thought was fine to start with).

On the other hand the plant is definitely not dying of K deficiency.

Yet another unscientific anecdote.


----------



## ChrisFL (Apr 19, 2013)

limuhead said:


> Humidity is higher because the compost is constantly wet/moist because it is about 6-12 inches thick. Kind of like in any natural environment, moisture laiden air is heavier than dryer air.



NO, it is not. The opposite is true, in fact.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Apr 19, 2013)

That's why low pressure means high humidity, and high pressure means low humidity. Water molecules are lighter than the N2 and O2 molecules they displace, so the higher the humidity the lighter the air. However, very humid air may "feel" heavier....but its not.


----------



## limuhead (Apr 20, 2013)

Ok, you guys can lay under my tree in the compost and tell me it's not more humid...oke:


----------



## Trithor (Apr 20, 2013)

limuhead said:


> Ok, you guys can lay under my tree in the compost and tell me it's not more humid...oke:



I am glad you are not a pilot! High humidity causes air density to be lower, which affects lift, and needs to be calculated in when you work out loads for takeoff. Being in Hawaii you might have noticed that your flight takes longer to lift off (warm humid air) as opposed to somewhere cool and dry, or even warm and dry.
When humidity is higher near the ground, that is just because the evaporation is from the ground layer and a gradient of moisture content will develop.


----------



## rcb (Apr 20, 2013)

I thought I'd give an update as it has been a while.

The much better bloomings continue, right now it's mostly my decidious Dendrobiums in bloom, and as I saw with the Catts, the number of spikes and the number of blooms are greatly increased over previous years - enough that it isn't explained by one more year of growth - imo.

I did do about two weeks worth of high P, from bone meal, and after that settled now into a different fertilizer formula. I am fertilizing at a little bit higher strength, and actively attempting to fertilize at least three times a week. The fertilizer is now 75% K-lite, 25% MSU.

Since then I've only had three Catts start spikes, one has fully bloomed, and so far, I'm not seeing the older leaf drop on these three.

So far the red Hoya leaves have not recovered though.

So I'm going to continue on.

I have not yet gotten a TDS meter, I've looked, and will probably settle on a combo TDS/pH meter, but that is going to have to wait until after I move. Especially as my new place is well water, so I will be collecting rain water.


----------



## Rick (Apr 20, 2013)

rcb said:


> I thought I'd give an update as it has been a while.
> 
> The much better bloomings continue, right now it's mostly my decidious Dendrobiums in bloom, and as I saw with the Catts, the number of spikes and the number of blooms are greatly increased over previous years - enough that it isn't explained by one more year of growth - imo.
> 
> ...



Cool

Are you still letting all the pots completely drain, or do you have trays under the pots to hold up some water/fert?

We've been getting plenty of rain in TN are you still normal for high rainfall?


----------



## rcb (Apr 20, 2013)

Rick said:


> Cool
> 
> Are you still letting all the pots completely drain, or do you have trays under the pots to hold up some water/fert?
> 
> We've been getting plenty of rain in TN are you still normal for high rainfall?



No, I couldn't bring myself to do it. With my traveling, I was just too worried about them drying out.

Yes, rainfall is normal, but we are now in between our two rainy seasons, so only getting storms twice a week. Once June comes, we will be back in the lots and lots of rain.

But, I've been fertilizing if I have to even if the pots are not completely dry. Yesterday we had the rains, but I will fertilize today still, and then let them dry.

I also am planning on supplementing with bone meal about every 3 - 4 weeks, as I can.


----------



## Rick (Apr 20, 2013)

rcb said:


> No, I couldn't bring myself to do it. With my traveling, I was just too worried about them drying out.
> 
> Yes, rainfall is normal, but we are now in between our two rainy seasons, so only getting storms twice a week. Once June comes, we will be back in the lots and lots of rain.
> 
> ...



What does the new growth look like on the Catts?


----------



## rcb (Apr 20, 2013)

Rick said:


> What does the new growth look like on the Catts?



They are still just little nubs now. Normal looking.


----------



## dodidoki (Apr 23, 2013)

Here are some update:

First is cattl. bicolos semialba, almost died because of rot problem. Treatment was desinfection, new potting media and K-lite "diet". Pics tell everything.

Second is my kovachii, many-many roots and a huge new growth.

All I can tell about K-lite effect is the enourmous root induction.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## SlipperFan (Apr 23, 2013)

Look at those roots!!!


----------



## Cheyenne (Apr 24, 2013)

I know you have told us before but what kind of bark is the kovachii planted in? Is it orchiata or kiwi bark or something else?


----------



## dodidoki (Apr 25, 2013)

Fleurs d'ecorces. Classified pine bark from France. Name of firm maybe Cenfora???? I don't know, I order it via a Hungarian gardening, but there is olny French writing on the bag. I can't speak French. I mix it with clay balls and Akadama.


----------



## Trithor (Apr 26, 2013)

Impressive root growth! The bark looks to be very nice quality, I wish we could get good quality bark here!


----------



## lepetitmartien (Apr 26, 2013)

dodidoki, if you post a pic of the bag, I can translate. 

From what I googled, the firm should be "Cenfora - Smurfit Kappa Comptoir du Pin". I haven't found a retail option and no website either… Smurfit Kappa has big corporate websites, as it's a paper making company.


----------



## dodidoki (Apr 27, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I know you have told us before but what kind of bark is the kovachii planted in? Is it orchiata or kiwi bark or something else?



Here are bark and miw I use ( 50% bark, 25% Akadama, 25% clay balls):





Uploaded with ImageShack.us





Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## lepetitmartien (Apr 27, 2013)

It's written on "flower of bark, bark of pinus maritimus", in French.

I can't see what's on the side, but part of it is the same seemingly.


----------



## Ozpaph (Apr 30, 2013)

those roots are amazing. Now how to get them to grow into the pot?


----------



## dodidoki (Apr 30, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> those roots are amazing. Now how to get them to grow into the pot?



Of course I repotted it into a little bit larger pot and a little deeper.


----------



## keithrs (May 22, 2013)

keithrs said:


> What do you think about this? The color change has happened on new growth and no leave have fallen. It's an Epi. capricornu



Update.....

With the few waterings I have done with the small amount of k-lite(1 cup of concentrate) left. The plant has rid its self of the yellow leaves. All the leaves have greened up. I have watered with roughly 15 ppm N k lite. No kelp, no fish. Straight RO and k-lite! On top of that I bloomed Masd coccinea outdoors here in SD. Everyone... even any Andy suggested i would fail unless i grow it cooler! I truly believe THIS $h!T WORKS!


----------



## Stone (May 22, 2013)

keithrs said:


> > I truly believe THIS $h!T WORKS!
> 
> 
> 
> Hallelujah ! Now get down on your knees and FEEEEL the power of the Klite brother!


----------



## keithrs (May 23, 2013)

I don't think I'll be putting my knee slippers on any time soon... But I'll rise my arms and lift my head for the all mighty K-Lite god!


----------



## lepetitmartien (Feb 17, 2014)

dodidoki said:


> Fleurs d'ecorces. Classified pine bark from France. Name of firm maybe Cenfora???? I don't know, I order it via a Hungarian gardening, but there is olny French writing on the bag. I can't speak French. I mix it with clay balls and Akadama.


After verifications, I could grab a bag and it's the bark used by all orchid professionals here in France save maybe one: La Canopée, that is importing Orchiata for some months now.


----------



## limuhead (Mar 18, 2014)

For me the debate is over. I've used K-lite and have found that I haven't seen any significant differences as far as the HEALTH of my plants, which consists of Paphs, Phrags, Cymbidiums, Cattleyas, Dendrobiums, Vandas, Miltoniopsis, as well as a few other genera mixed in, both species as well as hybrids. If anything they were a little slower growing but that may have to do with the weather; tons of rain, cooler temps, and less sun. Of all the fertilizers I have used, Miricle Grow, MSU type formulas, Fish emulsion, the list goes on and on I have found one thing that made for the healthiest, fastest growing and most productive flowering. That thing is Nutricote 16-16-16 180 day formula applied when repotting along with a generous top dressing of oyster shell. I think maybe the people that are having great success with K-lite may be growing under less than ideal conditions(under lights, inside where there isn't enough humidity ect.) and for whatever reason it is beneficial. I am no scientist but I have found that in ideal conditions fertilizer is by far the least important factor. My healthiest and most vigorous plants are those in baskets with Nutricote pellets that get almost no foliar fert and tons of light, air, and rain.


----------



## reivilos (Mar 18, 2014)

limuhead said:


> For me the debate is over. I've used K-lite and have found that I haven't seen any significant differences as far as the HEALTH of my plants, which consists of Paphs, Phrags, Cymbidiums, Cattleyas, Dendrobiums, Vandas, Miltoniopsis, as well as a few other genera mixed in, both species as well as hybrids. If anything they were a little slower growing but that may have to do with the weather; tons of rain, cooler temps, and less sun. Of all the fertilizers I have used, Miricle Grow, MSU type formulas, Fish emulsion, the list goes on and on I have found one thing that made for the healthiest, fastest growing and most productive flowering. That thing is Nutricote 16-16-16 180 day formula applied when repotting along with a generous top dressing of oyster shell. I think maybe the people that are having great success with K-lite may be growing under less than ideal conditions(under lights, inside where there isn't enough humidity ect.) and for whatever reason it is beneficial. I am no scientist but I have found that in ideal conditions fertilizer is by far the least important factor. My healthiest and most vigorous plants are those in baskets with Nutricote pellets that get almost no foliar fert and tons of light, air, and rain.



Thanks for the feedback. I guess there's no silver bullet.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 18, 2014)

limuhead said:


> For me the debate is over. I've used K-lite and have found that I haven't seen any significant differences as far as the HEALTH of my plants, which consists of Paphs, Phrags, Cymbidiums, Cattleyas, Dendrobiums, Vandas, Miltoniopsis, as well as a few other genera mixed in, both species as well as hybrids. If anything they were a little slower growing but that may have to do with the weather; tons of rain, cooler temps, and less sun. Of all the fertilizers I have used, Miricle Grow, MSU type formulas, Fish emulsion, the list goes on and on I have found one thing that made for the healthiest, fastest growing and most productive flowering. That thing is Nutricote 16-16-16 180 day formula applied when repotting along with a generous top dressing of oyster shell. I think maybe the people that are having great success with K-lite may be growing under less than ideal conditions(under lights, inside where there isn't enough humidity ect.) and for whatever reason it is beneficial. I am no scientist but I have found that in ideal conditions fertilizer is by far the least important factor. My healthiest and most vigorous plants are those in baskets with Nutricote pellets that get almost no foliar fert and tons of light, air, and rain.



Nutricote is slow release correct?

Did you ever test the water coming out of your pots when you were growing with K-lite or MSU? Since you are getting the best results with a slow release and you say you get tons of natural rainfall the other fertilizers probably were very diluted by the rainfall and a high % of the time the plants did not have adequate nutrients available between your applications of fertilizer.

The nutrient content of the media between irrigation with fertilizer is very important.


----------



## limuhead (Mar 18, 2014)

Never tested the water before or after going into or out of the pot. I know that the water here is supposed to be pretty good coming out of the pipe. Not sure where I heard it but the tap water here is cleaner, less tds than some bottled water. So essentially my tap water is more than likely cleaner than rainfall near big cities on the mainland. The tests I have been using are as follows. If the media has moss growing all over I don't do anything to try to adjust the ph or any other factors, because those are the plants that are growing like gangbusters. On further inspection those are also the ones with Nutricote and oyster shell. The accumulated run off from my orchids flows into my ginger/heliconia patch, which are also growing like crazy and producing flowers sooner than I was told they would by the guy who sold them to me. I think the debate about fertilizers is overdone and way over rated. To me the best grown plants are the only true test. I will go out and take a picture of a plant that was given to me for a sample for my sales plants and post it. Afterwards I will give you the feeding schedule for the plant. Post comments on how you think it was achieved...


----------



## limuhead (Mar 18, 2014)

This is a Dendrobium Little Atro in a 6 inch pot. It was dropped in the pot from a 4 inch after removing the pot, so it has been in the same media for about 3 years. It is about 30 inches wide, the flowers are spread uniformly around the plant. I estimate it has about 250 flowers. It was grown at sea level the parents, atroviolaceum x normanbyense come from 300 to 750 meters. First bloom for these is usually in compot if they don't have time to plant them out fast enough. What do you think?


----------



## limuhead (Mar 18, 2014)




----------



## gonewild (Mar 18, 2014)

limuhead said:


> Never tested the water before or after going into or out of the pot. I know that the water here is supposed to be pretty good coming out of the pipe. Not sure where I heard it but the tap water here is cleaner, less tds than some bottled water. So essentially my tap water is more than likely cleaner than rainfall near big cities on the mainland. The tests I have been using are as follows. If the media has moss growing all over I don't do anything to try to adjust the ph or any other factors, because those are the plants that are growing like gangbusters. On further inspection those are also the ones with Nutricote and oyster shell. The accumulated run off from my orchids flows into my ginger/heliconia patch, which are also growing like crazy and producing flowers sooner than I was told they would by the guy who sold them to me. I think the debate about fertilizers is overdone and way over rated. To me the best grown plants are the only true test. I will go out and take a picture of a plant that was given to me for a sample for my sales plants and post it. Afterwards I will give you the feeding schedule for the plant. Post comments on how you think it was achieved...




My question about testing the water was not about water quality. It is about what happened to the nutrients when you applied msu and K-lite as compared to nutricote. Nutricote is slow release so every time you water nutrients are released. Every time it rains it releases nutrients so you plants have nutrients available all the time. In contrast I assume you applied the MSU/k-lite in irrigation water at intervals with days between applications. If so then each time you watered with fertilizer water the plants had nutrients available to grow with similiar to what nutricote supplies (not ratio but ppms). But when it rains it washes out the nutrients that you applied with MSU/K-lite applications. So during rain storms the plants have no nutrients to source with MSU/K-lite but with Nutricote they do have.

Forming the opinion that MSU or K-lite is not as good as Nutricote based on one side having constant nutrients available and the other only intermittently available is not an accurate assessment. Nutricote may work better under you "unusual" conditions but it may not work better if you blocked the rainfall.

So my question about testing the water coming out of the pot was to know if there was nutrients still in the pots between your applications of MSU/K-lite. I suspect that most of the MSU/K-lite was flushed out by the heavy rainfall and the plants did not have a chance to use it on a daily basis. 
Collecting a sample of the water that drains from your pots and doing a simple ppm test would give you the answer.

I'm not questioning how well you plants are growing on Nutricote, I take your word for it. But Your post here was basically a negative report on the low K concept of nutrient supply. I am curious to know if K-lite showed poor results because the K level was to low or were the results because the plants did not actually have enough nutrients to compare with the constant slow release supply of Nutricote.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 18, 2014)

limuhead said:


> This is a Dendrobium Little Atro in a 6 inch pot. It was dropped in the pot from a 4 inch after removing the pot, so it has been in the same media for about 3 years. It is about 30 inches wide, the flowers are spread uniformly around the plant. I estimate it has about 250 flowers. It was grown at sea level the parents, atroviolaceum x normanbyense come from 300 to 750 meters. First bloom for these is usually in compot if they don't have time to plant them out fast enough. What do you think?



It looks great!


----------



## Stone (Mar 18, 2014)

limuhead said:


> > To me the best grown plants are the only true test.
> 
> 
> This statement is the best one made so far. And there really is nothing more to say.


----------



## limuhead (Mar 18, 2014)

It gets 15-5-15 on a regular basis, about 200ppm. This is for 2 applications, then the next dose is the same mixed with 20% volume calcium nitrate. Two more does of the 15-5-15, then again, but instead of calcium nitrate 20% volume of 13.7-0-46.3. The only thing different, and here is to me the key, is that when we get prolonged periods of sun, no clouds the plants get a 20-20-20 formula that has a high ammonia concentration every other dose when applicable. I think I recall the term 'potassium toxicity' thrown out there on occasion. My question would is why would this plant not be dead or at least unhealthy. My point is not to discredit the K-lite formula but is to point out that it may not be the low K but rather the addition of CALCIUM in the formula. If you took the MSU formula and changed nothing but the amount of K that might be another story altogether. Changing multiple variables and saying it is because of low K doesn't make sense to me. After having many conversations with a biology major that instead of teaching biology after graduating from UH Manoa here in Hawaii started working in an orchid nursery and lab. That was over 30 years ago. I told him about using K-lite, he has read the article in Orchids magazine and he feels that it is not the low K, but the added calcium. After using it I would have to agree. I am very interested and anticipating a follow up article about K-lite in Orchids magazine. Truth be told I would love to be proven wrong. I would jump on the K-lite band wagon regardless of cost but I personally have not seen anything that changed my mind. Like I stated, the K-lite might work exceptionally well in adverse conditions but here in Hawaii, with ideal conditions, I am not convinced...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 19, 2014)

limuhead said:


> It gets 15-5-15 on a regular basis, about 200ppm. This is for 2 applications, then the next dose is the same mixed with 20% volume calcium nitrate. Two more does of the 15-5-15, then again, but instead of calcium nitrate 20% volume of 13.7-0-46.3. The only thing different, and here is to me the key, is that when we get prolonged periods of sun, no clouds the plants get a 20-20-20 formula that has a high ammonia concentration every other dose when applicable. I think I recall the term 'potassium toxicity' thrown out there on occasion. My question would is why would this plant not be dead or at least unhealthy. My point is not to discredit the K-lite formula but is to point out that it may not be the low K but rather the addition of CALCIUM in the formula. If you took the MSU formula and changed nothing but the amount of K that might be another story altogether. Changing multiple variables and saying it is because of low K doesn't make sense to me. After having many conversations with a biology major that instead of teaching biology after graduating from UH Manoa here in Hawaii started working in an orchid nursery and lab. That was over 30 years ago. I told him about using K-lite, he has read the article in Orchids magazine and he feels that it is not the low K, but the added calcium. After using it I would have to agree. I am very interested and anticipating a follow up article about K-lite in Orchids magazine. Truth be told I would love to be proven wrong. I would jump on the K-lite band wagon regardless of cost but I personally have not seen anything that changed my mind. Like I stated, the K-lite might work exceptionally well in adverse conditions but here in Hawaii, with ideal conditions, I am not convinced...



Is the plant growing where it also gets rainfall? What is the "regular basis" that fertilizer is applied?

Isn't K-lite basically MSU with lower K?

Lowering the K content of fertilizer effectively raises the available Calcium to the plant but uses less chemical to achieve the goal. And it appears that the orchids can do quite well with lower K levels.

You are mostly correct it is the extra Ca that is what makes the difference and what K-lite does by reducing K is to increase the plants ability to intake Ca. Many growers have added extra Ca to standard fertilizer over the years but never had as good a result of getting the Ca to the plant as they are seeing with lowered K levels.

The ideal fertilizer for your ideal conditions in Hawaii would be a low K formula slow release Nutricote, I suspect one day in the future they will make it. That is the only possible way for you to apply a constant nutrient supply to plants growing with natural rainfall.


----------



## Rick (Mar 20, 2014)

Yes dilution is the solution to pollution.

Limuhead you mentioned you were feeding your new basket phrags at 30-50 ppm N.

Are you feeding your big Dendro at 200ppm N or total? Your plant is great, but I know a little old German lady in Shelbyville TN that hasn't fertilized a plant in her 7 green houses in over 50 years. She's in her 70's now but in the 60's and 70's she ran a cut flower/corsage biz. She still has most of her money plants from that operation. She has huge Dendros Catts, and Ceologyne. One got so big if caved in a glass top table then she left it to colonize the steel frame! All nutrients from breakdown of cypress mulch. Most of her big stuff is grown into her benches and the pots all split, so she just adds mulch over the top of the roots occasionally. Its really crazy. Most of her plants are too big for her to carry or fused into the benchs, so the only way to see them is go over to her place in person.

If you keep your pot TDS down (tons of flushing and regular potting mix change) you can grow with just about any fert. Also huge plant in little pot makes for lack of fert retention in the pot.

I couldn't grow a phalae in a pot to save my life, but grew them pretty decent on mounts (no K retention in the mix). But even my mounted stuff is doing significantly better low K.

I could grow a 2ft plant span supardii in a 2 inch pot, but put it in a bigger pot and roots would go away (regardless of all the magic potting mixes I went through).

Your plants may get rained on for days on end. Over here, folks rarely have access to temps conducive to leaving their plants outside in the rain (certainly not year round) or live in dry areas that don't get frequent rain. Most of us have been raised under the notion that plants must by dry before nightfall so that restricts flushing even more and promotes higher overall dose regimes of fert.

Dose = concentration X duration of exposure X frequency of exposure.


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2014)

limuhead said:


> the addition of CALCIUM in the formula.
> 
> not the low K, but the added calcium. After using it I would have to agree.



What makes you think that either myself or thousands of other growers weren't already burying our plants in calcium? For years! Besides the oyster shell or lime or dolomite or bone meal or aragonite I added to the potting mixes (as per recommendation from the masters, the overspray from my fogger (well water) regularly fogged my GH with 150 ppm of Ca. In a lot of my pics you could see white dust all over the plants. Calcium has never been in short supply in my GH. Virtually every orchid resource group has talked about the importance of calcium and adding it via potting amendments, and it made good sense to me as an ecologist for all the cliff dwelling paphs I was doing so bad with.

But (as is well known in the agri science community) K blocks uptake of Ca and high tissue K can cause Ca and Mg deficiency. 

That was brought up and referenced in the article, and I've posted links to the Poole paper several times (one of the few that demonstrated the phenomena with orchids).

If I hadn't "been there, done it, got the Tshirt for it" for my previous 9 years of growing (and a 1000+ seedlings down the tubes), I wouldn't have bothered digging into the mechanisms of excess K in plants. 

I guess what ends up griping me the most is I've done all the things the "masters" suggested, and when I didn't get the results, all they could come up with is more of the same, or be satisfied with plants that adapt to what you are doing.:sob:

I don't see any point in trying to fix things that aren't broken, unless you are expending a ton of effort and materials to get to where you are trying to get to.

But I don't think the bulk of low K users are imagining the improvements they are seeing in their plants either.:wink:


----------



## Stone (Mar 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> > I couldn't grow a phalae in a pot to save my life, but grew them pretty decent on mounts (no K retention in the mix). But even my mounted stuff is doing significantly better low K.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 21, 2014)

Mike, how to put this...I have been using K-lite for a couple of years now, with good sucess. Even better when I replaced parts of it with an urea based mix. Simultaneously I reduced the strength, from some 3-400ppm TDS to2-300ppm TDS and now I am getting closer to 100ppm TDS. That is approximately 100mg fertiliser pr liter irrigation water. N is somewhere around 15-20ppm. I still feel that I could dilute my mix even further without sacrifising growth. I have been a firm believer in low K, but have started wondering whether its all a matter of concentration. With the hilariously high fertiliser concentrations we normally apply on our plants (relative to nature of course), K matters and should better be kept low. With a more nature-like fertigation regime (just a few ppm) I feel that a more balanced fertiliser could be in place.
Another thing that I have had thoughts on has been the micro-nutrients. In the fertilisers they are present at a level adjusted to a fertigation regime of several hundreds of ppm (in horticulture 1000ppm is common). What happens when we dilute to less than 1/10th of that? Are we getting too low on certain micro-nutrients? Should we have a fertiliser with more micro and less macro nutrients? Just my 2c.
Bjorn


----------



## Stone (Mar 21, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> QUOTE] Even better when I replaced parts of it with an urea based mix


??. 


> Simultaneously I reduced the strength, from some 3-400ppm TDS to2-300ppm TDS


!!


> N is somewhere around 15-20ppm.


Something like mine 


> I have been a firm believer in low K, but have started wondering whether its all a matter of concentration.


!!


> With the hilariously high fertiliser concentrations we normally apply on our plants (relative to nature of course), K matters and should better be kept low.



No proof of this. 


> What happens when we dilute to less than 1/10th of that? Are we getting too low on certain micro-nutrients?


No I believe we are not.


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2014)

Rick said:


> Dose = concentration X duration of exposure X frequency of exposure.


Let me throw out a question about the "duration" part.

Some of the reading I've done points out the unique ability of velamen to "instantly" bond with mineral ions and hold onto them, presumably an evolutionary development to take advantage of the fact that the very first part of a rainstorm will contain the most nutrients, and to prevent the deluge that follows from washing it all away.

However, that says absolutely nothing about the rate of uptake, and that is what gives relative weight to the duration of exposure. If I run my fertilizer solution over a plant's roots for two minutes, is the plant getting twice the dose as it would at one minute? I doubt it.

Any nutrient uptake dynamics studies on orchids out there to lend us a hand?


----------



## Rick (Mar 21, 2014)

Ray said:


> Let me throw out a question about the "duration" part.
> 
> Some of the reading I've done points out the unique ability of velamen to "instantly" bond with mineral ions and hold onto them, presumably an evolutionary development to take advantage of the fact that the very first part of a rainstorm will contain the most nutrients, and to prevent the deluge that follows from washing it all away.
> 
> ...



The duration part is really the messiest thing with regard to the variabilities in orchid culture.

Easy for SH and hydroponic culture because duration is continuous and frequency = 1 by this culture method. (barring fluctuations in stability of tank concentrations).

Duration for mounted is very short. (Splash on and thats it for the most part). Putting this into the frame of your question, you could pro-rate the duration of a mounted plant by collecting all the immediate drip off (volume) and subtracting it from the total amount applied. Obviously not all that hits the mount will hit the roots, but it would get too complex to quibble over what is going to be a very small amount in the first place.

Duration for the potted plant is very difficult since it depends on the water retentive AND CEC properties of the mix. The effect translates to that graph I posted of Xaviers work with orchiata bark that showed that even with equal application of the same kind of fert, showed dramatic differences not only in the retention of K in the various potting mixes, but the amount of K that ended up in the plants.

In comparison of Orchiata to Coir, you had over a doubling of K retention in the mix (0.8% to 2.37%) which resulted in an increase in plant tissue K that went from 3.56% to 5.6%!! ( I believe all feeding was weekly at 100ppm K).

This phenomena is why I think I couldn't grow phalaes in pots (with everything from chc to bark to moss) but did OK mounted. Even at 100ppm for concentration with a regluar weekly frequency, I had a huge duration multiplier via the potting mix.


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 22, 2014)

Does this put to lie the notion that one should first water the orchids with plain water, and then fertilize them?


----------



## Ray (Mar 22, 2014)

SlipperFan said:


> Does this put to lie the notion that one should first water the orchids with plain water, and then fertilize them?



Hah! Like everything orchids, "it depends".

I have firmly come to believe that low-dose, frequent feeding is the best for the plants. Considering that I am not providing a lot of nutrition at a watering (it might still be high by nature's forests standards), I would think that saturating the roots with plain water first would be counter-productive, reducing the uptake substantially.

If, on the other hand, I watered heavily, infrequently, I think that saturating effect would help me prevent overdosing and "burning". When I volunteered my time (40 years ago) at what is now the Atlanta Botanical Gardens, we fed the orchids monthly at about 300+ ppm N, watering with plain water first.

While typing this, another thing occurred to me - that old practice may have been the unknowing implementation of the K-Lite concept! Think about this scenario:

Water first with tap water containing significant amounts of calcium, magnesium, and iron compared to the other minerals. Those are the ones "captured" by the velamen as it becomes saturated. Now come back and water with a fertilizer that has none of those, but substantial amounts of N, P & K, but because of the condition of the velamen, they will be absorbed in much lower rates than applied.


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 22, 2014)

Interesting, Ray. I water with pond water, so I suppose I give the plants something to eat every time I water. K-lite, when I give it, is that extra boost. At least, that's my very unscientific theory.


----------



## Stone (Mar 23, 2014)

Ray said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Mar 23, 2014)

SlipperFan said:


> Does this put to lie the notion that one should first water the orchids with plain water, and then fertilize them?



Dot, The Japanese bonsai masters say ''If you fertilize dry soil it is giving strong fertilizer'' or something like that. Which actually means that there should be some moisture at the roots before you feed. Watering the day before should therefore be fine. (unless your fertilizer is so weak as to be inoccuous (spelling?) then any time will be ok.


----------



## Rick (Mar 23, 2014)

Ray said:


> Hah! Like everything orchids, "it depends".
> 
> I have firmly come to believe that low-dose, frequent feeding is the best for the plants. Considering that I am not providing a lot of nutrition at a watering (it might still be high by nature's forests standards), I would think that saturating the roots with plain water first would be counter-productive, reducing the uptake substantially.
> 
> ...



Partially.

Plants grow and transfer materials with the environment 24/7 not just on feed day. So yes a monthly versus weekly feeding cuts the monthly duration of exposure by at last a factor of 4.

But:

If the potting mix is dry between feedings then the plant uptake only occurs at the feeding time. There must be a fairly decent aqueous interface between the root and the media for nutrient transfer. K is not a gas and doesn't crawl as a solid, so needs an aqueous pipeline for transfer. In a potting mix the porous materials act as a sponge. If roots are in contact they can transfer from the pores when wet, but not at some level of dry.

Those spongy materials extend the exposure duration beyond what a plant on a mount experiences. As you noted water over roots 1-2 -3 minutes on a mount. In comparison try 10,080 minutes of exposure duration over the coarse of a week if you load up a pot of wet moss with 100 ppm K.

Then add the CEC multiplier to the concentration regime. So if you are adding 100ppm K per week, and the potting mix selectively keeps the K and lets the Ca go through, then you get the effect Xavier's study shows with the K concentration going up through time even though applied K is constant. The Orchiata people are proud of the low CEC of their material and in that data supplied by Xavier its pretty obvious that it lets more K run through the pot compared to the other comparison materials. That pushes the duration figure closer to the mounted condition again.

Now heavy flushing intervention with a strong solution of Ca and Mg between the weekly or monthly K feedings will drop the exposure dose over the coarse of the week back down. but if you use RO water then the CEC of the material will not be overcome, and your mix will still be saturated with high K.


----------



## Rick (Mar 23, 2014)

Ray said:


> Let me throw out a question about the "duration" part.
> 
> Some of the reading I've done points out the unique ability of velamen to "instantly" bond with mineral ions and hold onto them, presumably an evolutionary development to take advantage of the fact that the very first part of a rainstorm will contain the most nutrients, and to prevent the deluge that follows from washing it all away.



Actually from a toxicity test protocol the mechanics of what happens inside the organism are not part of the basic dose considerations. That gets into the body burden/physiology issues of toxicity.

The study of velamen with regard to uptake efficiency doesn't change the basic equation of concentration X exposure duration rather than validating that orchids do efficiently pick up ions from the environment. Probably more efficiently than passive osmotic transfer. 

But duration is based on the duration of time the organism is exposed to the chemical in the external environment not its internal environment per se. 

Now if the material actually has a clearance time within the organism you can subtract that off from duration for pulsed dose studies. But I don't think there is efficient discharge of excess K in plants to consider this in the equation.


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2014)

Stone said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 14, 2014)

Ray said:


> Probably right - unless the fertilizer used was high in nitrogen (30-10-10 was used on all orchids in that Atlanta collection I mentioned earlier).
> 
> According to what I've read, (Marschner or Benzing, maybe both), velamen has the unique ability to instantly trap and hold cations. It stands to reason that 1) it will trap whatever is in the water supply, and 2) being that there are a finite number of "capture sites", if they are predominately filled with Ca, Mg, etc., there will be fewer sites available to capture the fertilizer cations, not to mention that the presaturation of the velamen would already lower the number absorbed and able to be captured.
> 
> All of that assumes, of course, that the absorption of the captured ions is slow enough that the originally-occupied sites haven't been "opened up" before that second application.



Ray, I find this very interesting, can you supply me with some background references?


----------



## Ray (Apr 14, 2014)

Bjorn, it was either in Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants by Marschner, or more likely, Vascular Epiphytes by Benzing. Sorry I cannot be more specific right now - doing two jobs - purchasing manager for Total, and manager of everything for First Rays.


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 14, 2014)

Found it, in Benzing. Thanks Ray!


----------



## naoki (Apr 14, 2014)

Bjorn, have you seen a recent paper by Zots and Winkler?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23292456

Email (or PM) me your email address if you want to take a look at it.


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 15, 2014)

naoki said:


> Bjorn, have you seen a recent paper by Zots and Winkler?
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23292456
> 
> Email (or PM) me your email address if you want to take a look at it.



mailed you


----------



## cnycharles (Apr 16, 2014)

Though there might be science stating that watering before feeding doesn't get as many nutrients into the roots, if your plant us too dry you're preventing the chance of burning the roots and plant. Old days may have been more chance of burning if they used more bark and higher periodic feeding instead of weakly weekly. Better to lessen risk of burning plant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2014)

That paper confirms the almost-instantaneous saturation of the velamen, and the trapping of ionic species, making me think that first watering with "hard" water might lead to boosting of Ca, Mg, and probably Fe in the plants' "diet", compared to watering once with that water supply plus fertilizer. Of course, a great deal depends upon preferential trapping and absorption dynamics.

Personally, I think that a little nutrition, applied frequently, is preferred over less-frequent, heavier feeding - it's what the plants have evolved to expect, after all.


----------



## Brabantia (Apr 16, 2014)

cnycharles said:


> Though there might be science stating that watering before feeding doesn't get as many nutrients into the roots, if your plant us too dry you're preventing the chance of burning the roots and plant. Old days may have been more chance of burning if they used more bark and higher periodic feeding instead of weakly weekly. Better to lessen risk of burning plant


.

Interesting for me what you say Charles, because during many years I tried to feed my plants at 125 ppm N as Ray recommended (in former days). Of cause I have burned many time the roots of my plants (Cattleya, Dendrobium, Oncidium and there hybrids ...) and for sure when I changed the substrate of my paphio's it remained no roots. Thought when I read scientific papers on the optimization of some orchids culture I see that some researchers are able the feed at high concentration. What is the trick? Are fertilizers made with urea as nitrogen source as "agressive" than the one made with ammonium and nitrate salts? Professional producers of Phalaenopsis are also feeding at high concentration 1000 µS is usual!


----------



## Ray (Apr 16, 2014)

Brabantia said:


> ...during many years I tried to feed my plants at 125 ppm N as Ray recommended (in former days). Of cause I have burned many time the roots of my plants...


125 ppm N is the recommendation of the folks that developed the "MSU" fertilizers - that's what was published in the AOS article many moons ago. One of those folks has since told me (my paraphrasing) "You know how we arrived at that? We tried it and it worked. There was no scientific basis for it."

There is a lot more to this than just concentration. I used the MSU RO formula @ 125 ppm N at every watering for about 5 years, and never experienced any burning or root loss. What I did notice was a lack of blooms due to overdosing nitrogen.


----------



## Brabantia (Apr 17, 2014)

Ray said:


> There is a lot more to this than just concentration. I used the MSU RO formula @ 125 ppm N at every watering for about 5 years, and never experienced any burning or root loss. What I did notice was a lack of blooms due to overdosing nitrogen.


Thanks for your response Ray. Have you also used the 125 ppm N for paphs?
I ask you this question because since more than one year I am now feeding my Paphs at 30 ppm N ( from 4/0.64/0.64 Ca and Mg same ratio as in KLite) one time per week and I observe that effectively the roots are in very good health (...and the plants also) but there growth is very slow. The substrate I use is 1/3 bark - 1/3 CHC - 1/3 hydroton (Gold Label for hydroponic culture).


----------



## Ray (Apr 17, 2014)

I am an "equal opportunity abuser" of orchids. I treat all of them the same, so yes, the paphs got the 125 ppm N, and were fine. I think some of it is related to S/H culture, which in my case involves a lot of flushing at every watering, and maintenance of high humidity in the greenhouse, resulting in very little mineral and waste buildup.

Like you, I cut back about a year ago.


----------



## naoki (Apr 17, 2014)

I was also using MSU (in combination with a bunch of whatever fert.) @100ppm for paphs (and others) when I first got MSU from Ray about 2-3 years ago. Roots were OK as with Ray's. But the media (bark) seemed to have deteriorated quite a bit, so I lowered the concentration to 10-30ppm after learning from Rick et al. I haven't repotted since the change, so I don't know about the root growth. I feel like the shoot growth seems to be a bit slower. I thought that this is psychological things, but it is interesting to hear Brabantia is feeling in the same way. This might mean that plants are going with higher root:shoot ratio. I hope it is leading to the long-term health, though. And I can probably stretch the repotting a bit (I'm going to keep eyes on pH and TDS of pour through as Mike Stone and Rick mentioned). I'm also using bark based media (bark:coarse perlite:sphag:sand=3:2:1:0.5), and not S/H.

You are right, lots of horticultural studies do show faster growths under much higher N than what we are using. They probably throw out their plants after 1 year or experiments, though (so degradation in root environment, or repotting isn't an issue for them).


----------



## gonewild (Apr 17, 2014)

Brabantia said:


> .
> 
> Interesting for me what you say Charles, because during many years I tried to feed my plants at 125 ppm N as Ray recommended (in former days). Of cause I have burned many time the roots of my plants (Cattleya, Dendrobium, Oncidium and there hybrids ...) and for sure when I changed the substrate of my paphio's it remained no roots. Thought when I read scientific papers on the optimization of some orchids culture I see that some researchers are able the feed at high concentration. What is the trick? Are fertilizers made with urea as nitrogen source as "agressive" than the one made with ammonium and nitrate salts? Professional producers of Phalaenopsis are also feeding at high concentration 1000 µS is usual!



It is very unlikely that you would damage (burn) the roots with a nitrogen level of 125ppm. That is assuming that you are getting the nitrogen from a commercial fertilizer formula. 125 ppm N combined with lessor amounts of P and K wont give salt levels high enough to damage roots. If your roots were damaged by the irrigation application then perhaps the salt content of your source water is/was too high.

If you apply fertilizer at levels strong enough to damage tissue you should see leaf damage before root damage.
What you perceive as burned roots are probably roots that died as a result of something other than the 125ppm N strength fertilizer.

To be clear in what I am trying to say is that 125ppm N will not burn leaves or roots. If the irrigation water is damaging root tissue it would be caused by overall salt levels being too high (too high ppm level) not the Nitrogen level.


----------



## Stone (Apr 17, 2014)

naoki said:


> > I was also using MSU (in combination with a bunch of whatever fert.) @100ppm for paphs (and others) when I first got MSU from Ray about 2-3 years ago. Roots were OK as with Ray's. But the media (bark) seemed to have deteriorated quite a bit, so I lowered the concentration to 10-30ppm after learning from Rick et al.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 17, 2014)

gonewild said:


> > If you apply fertilizer at levels strong enough to damage tissue you should see leaf damage before root damage.
> > What you perceive as burned roots are probably roots that died as a result of something other than the 125ppm N strength fertilizer.
> >
> > To be clear in what I am trying to say is that 125ppm N will not burn leaves or roots. If the irrigation water is damaging root tissue it would be caused by overall salt levels being too high (too high ppm level) not the Nitrogen level.[/
> ...


----------



## Brabantia (Apr 18, 2014)

Stone said:


> naoki said:
> 
> 
> > Naoki,
> ...


----------



## naoki (Apr 18, 2014)

Thank you for the explanation, Mike. I've known N and bark media, but your explanation really points out what is going on (especially, I didn't know how composted bark could work). I'll dig around more information about this process related to media-microbe relationship. I probably need to get the book (Growing Media for Ornamental Plants) you recommended.

In old days, people recommended NPK=3:1:1 for bark, but you are trying to go more extreme ratio with ammonium nitrates, right?

I guess foliar feeding is one way to keep the microbe population small. Since the limiting resource for bacteria seems to be N, we could drench the orchid with no N fertilizer. Then foliar feeding with urea? But it is too much work.

I guess with enough inorganic, breaking down of bark isn't probably a big deal. Dr. Tanaka's brachy method uses 60-70% inorganic, and he doesn't have to repot for a long time.


----------



## Brabantia (Apr 18, 2014)

I don't know if publications are existing on reactivity between materials used usually in horticulture and there capacity to react with ammonium and nitrate nitrogen forms. This is maybe a good subject for a student thesis.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 19, 2014)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > It's not direct tissue damage that's the problem, it's reverse osmosis where high media EC leads to salt concentration higher in the media than the roots which will draw water from them and kill them after which they will (possibly) get attacked by pathogens. That wont happen on a leaf surface as usually does not stay wet. Of course if you put a tablespoon of fertilizer in a glass of water and poured that on the leaves you would burn everything!
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 19, 2014)

naoki said:


> Since the limiting resource for bacteria seems to be N, we could drench the orchid with no N fertilizer. Then foliar feeding with urea? But it is too much work.



That won't work well. Orchids need to use their roots to take in the majority of their nutrients. 
Feed the bacteria in the media and let the bacteria do their job of providing a perfect media environment.


----------



## naoki (Apr 20, 2014)

gonewild said:


> That won't work well. Orchids need to use their roots to take in the majority of their nutrients.



Lance, yeah, it probably doesn't work, and too much troubles. But I think there are studies which used tracers to show orchids take up some types of nutrients via leaves (I can't find the citation, though). I think it was about P and N. In case of N, the N uptake is higher when NH4 and NO3 are mixed than when they were used separately. I think Ray said Urea can also get incorporated to leaves readily. Obviously it doesn't apply to all mineral nutrients. Also, roots are more efficient than leaves in uptake (this is probably obvious, but I saw a paper about it). So it probably requires lots of foliar N application, and it is wasteful (and difficult to control the dripping). Uptaking is only part of the story, so there could be other side effects. But are there data showing that orchids can't survive with just foliar N? Or did you try it? Just curious.


----------



## Stone (Apr 21, 2014)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > 125ppm N levels of fertilizer is not a high EC level.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 21, 2014)

naoki said:


> > In old days, people recommended NPK=3:1:1 for bark, but you are trying to go more extreme ratio with ammonium nitrates, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brabantia (Apr 21, 2014)

naoki said:


> Lance, yeah, it probably doesn't work, and too much troubles. But I think there are studies which used tracers to show orchids take up some types of nutrients via leaves (I can't find the citation, though). I think it was about P and N. In case of N, the N uptake is higher when NH4 and NO3 are mixed than when they were used separately. I think Ray said Urea can also get incorporated to leaves readily. Obviously it doesn't apply to all mineral nutrients. Also, roots are more efficient than leaves in uptake (this is probably obvious, but I saw a paper about it). So it probably requires lots of foliar N application, and it is wasteful (and difficult to control the dripping). Uptaking is only part of the story, so there could be other side effects. But are there data showing that orchids can't survive with just foliar N? Or did you try it? Just curious.



How are working professionals? I don't think they spray one pot at a time. The leaves and the substrate are impregnated by the fertilizing solution. Of course we do not know the proportions of elements picked up by the leaves and by the roots .


----------



## gonewild (Apr 21, 2014)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 21, 2014)

naoki said:


> Lance, yeah, it probably doesn't work, and too much troubles. But I think there are studies which used tracers to show orchids take up some types of nutrients via leaves (I can't find the citation, though). I think it was about P and N. In case of N, the N uptake is higher when NH4 and NO3 are mixed than when they were used separately. I think Ray said Urea can also get incorporated to leaves readily. Obviously it doesn't apply to all mineral nutrients. Also, roots are more efficient than leaves in uptake (this is probably obvious, but I saw a paper about it). So it probably requires lots of foliar N application, and it is wasteful (and difficult to control the dripping). Uptaking is only part of the story, so there could be other side effects. But are there data showing that orchids can't survive with just foliar N? Or did you try it? Just curious.



We tried it years ago. Best growth is obtained by irrigation of roots.

But be clear what your question is..... Are you asking if orchids can survive with just foliar N or are you asking if they can grow well and be productive with just foliar N?

Orchids can survive without any artificial application of N. But note that no one that keeps orchids wants their plants to just survive.

We need to be careful and not make feeding orchids more complex than need be. Looking for published scientific proof is going in the wrong direction. As horticulturists and not biologists we need to learn from growing plants and not reading papers.

Most knowledge about plant nutrition has never been published in a science paper.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 21, 2014)

Stone said:


> naoki said:
> 
> 
> > If that is the case there is no need for Klite....
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 21, 2014)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > gonewild said:
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 21, 2014)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 21, 2014)

gonewild said:


> > Why the vendetta against K-lite? Is it the name you object to?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 21, 2014)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > gonewild said:
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 21, 2014)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 21, 2014)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 21, 2014)

Brabantia said:


> > Of course we do not know the proportions of elements picked up by the leaves and by the roots
> 
> 
> Yes we do
> http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/127/3/442.full.pdf


----------



## Stone (Apr 21, 2014)

Here is the brom paper:
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/1/146.full


----------



## naoki (Apr 22, 2014)

Lance & Mike, it's ok to disagree, that's the part of science, right? Even though Lance doesn't seem to be interested in quantitative results, anecdotal/subjective evidence/observation can be a good start for science. Orchid culture is part science and part art, so it is good to have both sides.

Mike, I think that high-N diet (or low everything else) could be interesting. There are some variation among studies, but some studies show that benefits of K saturate quickly (i.e. as long as there is small amount, orchids seem to grow equally well). But higher N seems to contribute to more growths (even at 50-200ppm N). If that is the case, reducing one of the big 3 (K) is a good way to lower EC. Rick is probably calling this as preventing K accumulation, right? So the difference in the interpretation of K-lite success is the relative contribution of reduced EC vs the next step (interference by K).

Salt/osmotic tolerance is a big topic in plant biology. We know paphs are not good at dealing with high salt, but we don't know the quantitative effects on root growths (I failed to find any papers related to orchids). So does a bit lower EC translate to better growth? In one of Wang's older paper, his low and high fertilization treatments (4x higher concentration) resulted in twice as high EC at the media. He didn't seem to see much effects from this higher EC. But Phal tolerance is probably different from Paphs.

Bromeliad paper seems to be interesting. But the link to Brabantia's comment is not the right paper, is it? This is closer to her question (just abstract):
http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/138/3/229.short
but this is just for N. We don't know how much leaves can take up each of the other mineral nutrients.


----------



## Stone (Apr 22, 2014)

naoki said:


> > But the link to Brabantia's comment is not the right paper, is it?
> 
> 
> Table 7 shows NPK uptake


----------



## Stone (Apr 22, 2014)

naoki said:


> > Lance & Mike, it's ok to disagree, that's the part of science, right? Even though Lance doesn't seem to be interested in quantitative results, anecdotal/subjective evidence/observation can be a good start for science. Orchid culture is part science and part art, so it is good to have both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

