# Silicon the forgotten macronutrient?



## Bjorn (Mar 1, 2013)

Orchids like most plants contain a rather high proportion of silicon in the dry matter, levels are comparable at least to those of phosporous, calcium and sulphur, and while the latter elements are supplied through the fertilizer , silicon is not. Take a look at the below paper and give some feedbackoke:
http://www.fngla.org/education-and-research/research/reports/75/finalreport.pdf


----------



## gonewild (Mar 1, 2013)

Here is some feedback...

For some reason they do not tell us what "water soluble" fertilizer they used to fertilize the trials. 

Then for some reason on the control group they supplemented the fertilizer with additional Potassium. WHY? For me this invalidates the comparison off the control group.

Since the trials here with K-lite indicate that Potassium excess may decrease plant growth what their trial may actually show is that increased Potassium decreases growth rather than silica increases growth.

That said I always try to add silica sand to my medias for all plants. Seemd to help growth. I always assumed the sand grains had a physical benefit but maybe it is the silica that it provides.


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 1, 2013)

There are many good silicon sources available. Sand as we commonly use is one of the poorer, that has to do with the crystallinity of the quartz. Better alternatives are diatomeous earth, calsium silicate slag and the so-called microsilica. The easiest to get is probably the diatomeous earth(cat sand?)
The paper that is linked claims that one of the effects of silicon fertilizing is to mediate uptake of several elements, one of them K, potassium oke:
What is remarkable is that the availability of silicon in sand-free bark mixes is rather restricted. Could lack of available silicon be the rate limiting Factor for many orchidists?


----------



## Ron-NY (Mar 1, 2013)

couple of years ago there was a similar discussion
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19571


----------



## Rick (Mar 1, 2013)

I think I brought this up in one of the earlier converstations about low K in jungle plants. In the newly published article there is leaf litter data (from Sumatra) that shows that silica in leaves exceeded K, Mg, S, and Al. It was over 8000mg/Kg. A little more than 1/2 the Ca. So lots of Si leaf litter.

The amount of Si in various tap and well waters varies a lot, but is usually present in small amounts. There is probably plenty in the bark, CHC, and/or sphagnum moss we use in potting mixes. Not sure how much we are getting from fine sand or diatomaceous earth additions.

The reason for it coupled with K is that most potash solutions are primarily potassium silicates (and are also very alkaline). Sodium silicate is also cheap from the hardware supply as wood sealers. Various talc products are also just fine silicate based dust.

So not sure if its worth looking for another chemical additive rather than just working with the organic materials we use already. (Bark/moss/ground leaves....)


----------



## Rick (Mar 1, 2013)

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/6/1027.full.pdf

An interesting paper I just found.

Other than some special interest groups, angiosperms in general rated lower than mosses for silicon content.

Also if you can find raw talcum powder, that is magnesium silicate. Talc for humans is used as a desicant (water absorbant). I guess if used in small amounts and fully saturated to start it might be useful as a silcon supplement.


----------



## Rick (Mar 1, 2013)

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/75/6/605.full.pdf

Here's another interesting one with Phalenopsis and use of calcium silicate addition.


----------



## Rick (Mar 1, 2013)

DE powder is probably the cheapest form of powdered silicates, but most of us also use pearlite (sponge rock) in our potting mixes, which is also 75% silicates. (So you could crush that too).


----------



## Stone (Mar 1, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > Since the trials here with K-lite indicate that Potassium excess may decrease plant growth what their trial may actually show is that increased Potassium decreases growth rather than silica increases growth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Mar 1, 2013)

As far as I know, woody plants do not contain very high Si concentrations comprared to the grasses especially bamboo. Woody plants use lignin for strength, grasses use Silica. Many paphs grow in association with grasses and bamboo.....and moss of course..


----------



## gonewild (Mar 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Please! first I have also read of trials (not with orchids) that increased both root and top growth with added silica.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> As far as I know, woody plants do not contain very high Si concentrations comprared to the grasses especially bamboo. Woody plants use lignin for strength, grasses use Silica. Many paphs grow in association with grasses and bamboo.....and moss of course..



Many tropical hardwood trees have very high silica content. Enough that it is blamed for dulling saw blades. Some tropical sawn lumber has visible pockets of Silica. Two of the species that I am familiar with in Peru that are high in Silica also are two species that host large populations of epithetic plants.


----------



## Stone (Mar 1, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > I'm not saying silica does not increase growth. What I am pointing out is that the trial in the linked report is faulty because for the control group they increased the K in the fertilizer rather than just eliminate the silica. This leaves open the argument that the difference between the two groups could be the added K rather than lower Si.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Mar 1, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Many tropical hardwood trees have very high silica content. Enough that it is blamed for dulling saw blades. Some tropical sawn lumber has visible pockets of Silica. Two of the species that I am familiar with in Peru that are high in Silica also are two species that host large populations of epithetic plants.



Point taken.
The trial I read noted that plants grown in Pine bark based media (99% here) had very low levels of Si available to them compared to when soil was a major ingredient.


----------



## Stone (Mar 1, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > Don't you read the reports ST members post about their K-lite use?
> 
> 
> You bectcha!


----------



## gonewild (Mar 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 1, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I'm not saying silica does not increase growth. What I am pointing out is that the trial in the linked report is faulty because for the control group they increased the K in the fertilizer rather than just eliminate the silica.


The same has to be said about any observations made using K-lite. Many variables have been changed in the K-lite formulation compared to conventional formulations such as MSU or DynaGrow; not just the proportion of K. The proportion of phosphorus has been decreased just as much as the proprtion of K. Also, the proportions of Ca and Mg have been significantly increased. And the amount of sulfate, which I consider to be another important variable, is not even mentioned

The K-lite formulation could just as accurately be called P-lite though I think even better would be to call it KP-lite or CalMag.

It is my, unsubstantiated, belief that conventional formulations do not have an excess of K but an excess of P and a deficiency of Ca, Mg and S. And, except for the deficiency of K and the failure to mention S, this is just what the K-lite formulation corrects.



> Maybe I should not have used K-lite by name and rather just said excess K.


Oh no, you really should mention the K-lite formulation by name since so many other variables were changed in the K-lite formulation in addition to reducing the proportion of K.



> Don't you read the reports ST members post about their K-lite use? Most if not everyone has suggested growth improvement so i don't know why you say "nothing more".


Assuming that these reports are accurate and that the change to K-lite was the only variable changed then this still does not demonstrate the K toxicity thesis since so many other variables were changed in the K-lite formulation.


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 2, 2013)

a good number of fertilizers now have both calcium and magnesium in them, and if a fertilizer was quite a bit short of phosphorus, which would normally make things taller and stretchier, possibly, so less phosphorus might make them look 'shorter' or seem to grow and expand less, or 'not grow as good'

one thing to notice, is that there has been some mention in threads that sulfur can be necessary and sometimes it may not be high enough in our orchid feeds or watering. most fertilizers that add calcium and magnesium intentionally leave out sulfur since they can react and bind in solution (making a nice endothermic reaction; icy fertilizer barrel)


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 2, 2013)

*And then back to silicon please.....*

Seems as if I triggered a discussion here that may lead us somewhere
I have skimmed through some papers on the issue and found that often calcium silicate(CaSiO3) is used as silicon source. Having worked with silicate science for 30years now, I wonder whether calcium silicate actually is a good source of silicon, just as I wonder whether the so-called soluble silicates are any good at all
The reason for my doubts are based on the following: for silicon to be absorbed by plants, it must be as soluble monosilicic acid that is slightly soluble, some ppm. The problem with the silicates is that the silicon is present as anions, e.g. as SiO3^2- . In acid environments, these can equilibrate with monosilicic acid (Si(OH)4) but under any circumstance, monosilicic acid is a shortlived compound due to polymerization. And the polymers are not that easily absorbed by the plants.:wink:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01637a017
This link http://www.firt.org/sites/default/files/Scarbrough_Silica_in_Plant_Nutrition_presentation.pdf
sums up quite a few of the observations, although it is a commercial marketing presentation. The product in question here is probably a slag.
Then, my two cents on why I do not believe in soluble silicate solutions. Most soluble silica solutions a.k.a. Waterglass, e.g. Potassium waterglass has an alkali/silica ratio that is much lower than the required ratio of 1. This simply implies that silicon is not present as monomeric silica, but as polymers. And the polymers do not easily get absorbed. And if the ratio is correct, delivery as a solution probably results in a polymerization anyway:evil:
Using these solutions may well have positive effects, sealing/strengthening the epidermis with a silica glass, but it does not get absorbed by the roots.
So to sum up, silicon nutrition is not straight forward. What can be done is to use soluble silica(not silicates). This is typically amorphous structures with high surface area. Some alternatives have been mentioned earlier in this thread. Perlite has been mentioned, I am uncertain how effective it is but perhaps
Silicon fertilizing is done at a big scale in the rice-fields of the far east, and a lot of research is being done on the issue in countries like Japan. Of course, rice is a silicon intensive crop, and the fields get easily depleted. Some modern agricultural practises add to the problem. One example is that while the rice hulls/straw used to be burnt on field in slow burning heaps(low temperature), nowadays the remains tend to be carried away and burnt in a more effective way, producing heat etc. The problem is that even if the ash would be brought back on the rice field, the silicon would have become unavailable due to the high firing temperature. It has turned out that the old fashioned stinky heaps of slow burning rice remains was perfect to liberate the silicon which was brought back onto the fields. this does of course not happen anymore and if it does it does not contribute significantly to soluble silicon, and the fields get depleted. Composting is not an effective way either it seems.:rollhappy:
So, back to start; my original question was: Why do we fertilize with phosphorous, sulfur, calcium, magnesium etc. but not with silicon although silicon is just as abundant in the plants as the rest? And as we know, the substrates commonly used are not particularly rich in soluble silicon either?oke
Btw. I have started fertilizing with microsilica and "think" I see notable improvements. I will never be able to prove it though, as I also changed other things more or less simultaneously.:evil::evil::evil::evil:


----------



## Secundino (Mar 2, 2013)

You say, composting is not effective. Do you know why?
I'll have to look it up in my books, for silicon fertilizing is part of organic/bio agriculture and more so in biol/dynamic agriculture methods.


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 2, 2013)

Secundino said:


> You say, composting is not effective. Do you know why?
> I'll have to look it up in my books, for silicon fertilizing is part of organic/bio agriculture and more so in biol/dynamic agriculture methods.



Actually, I am a bit uncertain about that one cannot quote anything right here but think I remember that decomposition has to go the whole way, not only to compost but to the mineralization stage before silicon gets available. So, on a short term it does not work. On a long term however
Of course for orchids growing, its out of question to go to the mineralization stage of the compost:rollhappy:


----------



## Ray (Mar 2, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> ....the amount of sulfate, which I consider to be another important variable, is not even mentioned


No, it is not mentioned on the label, as most states do not require it, but if you consider that both the MSU & K-Lite formulas contain sulfates of copper, manganese and zinc, it's easy enough to calculate.

MSU RO contains 0.092%S and the K-Lite is about 0.102%S


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 3, 2013)

Ray said:


> No, it is not mentioned on the label, as most states do not require it, but if you consider that both the MSU & K-Lite formulas contain sulfates of copper, manganese and zinc, it's easy enough to calculate.
> 
> MSU RO contains 0.092%S and the K-Lite is about 0.102%S



I guess that I don't understand how whether something is required by state agencies or not determines if it is important. Dyna-Gro lists the amount of sulfur in their formulations. In any event, it is my opinion that "K-lite", like most conventional formulations, is deficient in sulfur.


----------



## Stone (Mar 3, 2013)

Roughly, S is required at about 10-15% of the N. In natural systems, S comes from humus and in soil, from gypsum etc. In modern p/mixes, you must provide for it in your fertilizer. I think a lot of the nutritional problems with orchids is that we don't/can't use humus and/or clay in the substrate. Just yesterday I was reading that 1 gram of humus has a surface area of around 800-900 sq. mt! That potentially, is a huge bank of reserves.


----------



## Stone (Mar 3, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> > and if a fertilizer was quite a bit short of phosphorus, which would normally make things taller and stretchier, possibly, so less phosphorus might make them look 'shorter' or seem to grow and expand less, or 'not grow as good'
> 
> 
> 
> Its the Potassium that regulates the stretching not the Poke:


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 3, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Why do we fertilize with phosphorous, sulfur, calcium, magnesium etc. but not with silicon although silicon is just as abundant in the plants as the rest?



I think that perhaps we should add sulphur to this listoke:



Ray said:


> No, it is not mentioned on the label, as most states do not require it, but if you consider that both the MSU & K-Lite formulas contain sulfates of copper, manganese and zinc, it's easy enough to calculate.
> 
> MSU RO contains 0.092%S and the K-Lite is about 0.102%S



If sulphur was added in amounts corresponding to the content of the plants, the fertiliser should contain approximately the same amount as phosphorous, magnesium and calcium?



Stone said:


> Roughly, S is required at about 10-15% of the N. In natural systems, S comes from humus and in soil, from gypsum etc. In modern p/mixes, you must provide for it in your fertilizer. I think a lot of the nutritional problems with orchids is that we don't/can't use humus and/or clay in the substrate. Just yesterday I was reading that 1 gram of humus has a surface area of around 800-900 sq. mt! That potentially, is a huge bank of reserves.



Should be at a tenfold level of today then? unless the plants have efficient "sulphur pumps" to get access to it.  for some of us, the suphur supply is secured by the water we use, e.g. acid rain from industrial pollution. Personally I use water from a bog, this is, particularly during summer smelling from sulphur, so I guess I am covered:rollhappy: However, the smell is hydrogensulfide and the amounts may very well be at a too low level. Those using RO water may run into deficiency problems though:evil:
Then some notes about the high specif surface of the humus: this is the origin of cationic exchange capacity, CEC. The surface is loaded with negative sites being able to attach cations (positive ions). Over time, these sites get saturated with more or less immobile species that may not be positive for the plants, like potassium. I think the issues we have seen with CHC and salt accumulation in compost is at least partly due to this CEC. So, in order to avoid salt buildup and thereby prolong the repot intervals, my strategy is to have a compost with low CEC (like using quite a bit of sand and stone) combined with a fairly low amount of fertiliser in the irrigation(say 200ppm TDS).


----------



## Ray (Mar 3, 2013)

Back to the silicon, for a moment.... I don't understand why folks think sand is a good source. SiO2 is one of the most insoluble minerals around - unless it is in a highly alkaline environment. Why do you think that the majority of beaches are sand?


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 3, 2013)

Ray said:


> Back to the silicon, for a moment.... I don't understand why folks think sand is a good source. SiO2 is one of the most insoluble minerals around - unless it is in a highly alkaline environment. Why do you think that the majority of beaches are sand?



You are entirely right, Ray
Sand is definitely not a good source, since it is made of crystalline silica (quartz) and aditionally not very fine either. If silica (SiO2) is to dissolve, the Silica source has to be amorphous and very fine like submicron. Then silica may dissove, not much but perhaps up to 50-100ppm or so. It takes time though.
Btw. The dissolution is by hydrolyses to monosilisic acid.
SiO2 + 2H2O = Si(OH)4 that is the entity the plants are able to consume. By continous removal of the monosilicic acid by the plants more silica goes into solution and over time this lis responsible for the substantial silicon content we see in some plants. In orchid growing, it may very well be a growth restricting parameter


----------



## Secundino (Mar 3, 2013)

If this is true, HOW do the plants get Si? Is there an amorphous silica source in the soil? Or the other way: how do we get monosilicic acid into the substrate? Is this part of the work the bacteria an fungi do? As well as for S, mineralizing decomposing proteins?

As I like (old) books about orchids, I found that all the old potting-mix-recipes given have a part of 'sand' - quartz sand I understand - for Paphs!


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

Sand is an excellent drainage material. Lot of root contact and small porosity (capillary transfer benefits) , but not water retentive. If you get micro amounts of Si moved from sand to plant via micro bacterial degradation, then so be it, but I wouldn't count on it as a significant source of Si for most plants.

Clay soils are fine mostly aluminum silicates. And many limestone's contain calcium silicates (though these are not likely any more bio available as for sand).

I would guess that most silicon in herbaceous plants is being recycled via dead plant material after being moved up in miniscule quantities via trees in contact with the local geology. Grasses growing in clay soil may access more via direct uptake from soil (???)

Maybe just chasing ghosts on this one.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

If you are really scared about sulfur deficiency you could always add another 1% Mg SO4 ( or 2% epsom salt to your DI based fertilizer mix).

As noted above, most surface/tap/well waters contain several ppm of sulfate (way in excess of need).

Unless you are strict RO use and use in strict hydroponic growing (either air spray or inorganic potting materials that absolutely do not break down such as borosilicate glass marbles) then incidental sulfate will be everywhere with no problem.

And as we found out for K, plants do have super efficient uptake pumps, so it is generally not necessary to supply anything in relative percentages to what the plant contains in leaf tissue analysis.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2013)

Maybe you should also add titanium since it is present in plant tissue?

Silica and sulfur are easily and cheaply available to plants from the media and don't need to be added in the fertilizer mix.

If you want to take plant fertilizer to a level that is based solely on the science of tissue analysis then you better also add Titanium to your fertilizer.

You can't put every mineral a plant needs into one solution that is simple enough to used by orchid collectors.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Maybe you should also add titanium since it is present in plant tissue?



Don't forget palladium!!

http://www.arbico-organics.com/downloads/maxicrop-kelp-analysis.pdf

Getting crazy guys.

Most of us also use a kelp extract, which contains just about everything under the sun. And yet another source of silicon and sulfur.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 3, 2013)

Rick said:


> If you are really scared about sulfur deficiency you could always add another 1% Mg SO4 ( or 2% epsom salt to your DI based fertilizer mix).


No, I am not "scared" why do you use such a negatively biased term. Does your attitude indicate that you do not consider sulfur a necessary element for plant growth?

If I used commercial fertilizer formulations such as K-lite I would be concerned about the lack of sulfur, especially since they don't even bother to specify the sulfur content, but I blend my own formulations. 



Rick said:


> As noted above, most surface/tap/well waters contain several ppm of sulfate (way in excess of need).


I find your attitude quite strange, you have what seems an obsessive concern about potassium levels but you flippantly dismiss sulfur as being so trivial that it does not warrant being mentioned on a label.



Rick said:


> Unless you are strict RO use and use in strict hydroponic growing (either air spray or inorganic potting materials that absolutely do not break down such as borosilicate glass marbles) then incidental sulfate will be everywhere with no problem.


So you are saying don't be concerned about sulfur even if you use RO water because enough will be obtained from the air or media. That seems a rather flippant and, in my opinion, probably erroneous comment



Rick said:


> And as we found out for K, plants do have super efficient uptake pumps, so it is generally not necessary to supply anything in relative percentages to what the plant contains in leaf tissue analysis.


So what you seem to be saying is that any proportions of any nutrient will be optimal (except, or course, for potassium which has to be strictly controlled). 
I find your position to be quite odd.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Maybe you should also add titanium since it is present in plant tissue?
> 
> Silica and sulfur are easily and cheaply available to plants from the media and don't need to be added in the fertilizer mix.
> 
> ...



You equate sulfur to titanium with respect to plant nutritional requirements? That is an ignorant statement.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2013)

A little side tracked from discussing the benefits of Silica?


The idea that Silica should be added to fertilizers is not new (orchids and other ornamentals). It has been tried many times and the results are not dramatic one way or the other. They may actually show some positive results and really don't show any negative result.

Sulphur has been tested and manipulated for a long, long time. The idea that fertilizer should contain more has been tested and as with Silica the results are positive but not dramatic. Personally I have tried all sorts of different uses of sulfur on plants and the results were not very exciting one way or another. 

Basically plants are able to forage what they need from what is available and both silica and sulfur seem to be available from many different places for the plants in most growing conditions.

The idea with K-lite and lowering the potassium is to restrict a mineral from availability because the plants over-indulge on it causing a nutritional imbalance. The benefit and likely success of K-lite is because it gives better results with less fertilizer. If anything K-lite does increase the ratio of Silica and Sulfur without actually needing to add it to the fertilizer mix. The reason being is that with the reduction of the contained K-lite minerals that creates an increase in the ratio of naturally available Sulfur and Silica.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> You equate sulfur to titanium with respect to plant nutritional requirements? That is an ignorant statement.



Thank you.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> So what you seem to be saying is that any proportions of any nutrient will be optimal (except, or course, for potassium which has to be strictly controlled).
> I find your position to be quite odd.




Odd and heretical. Go ahead and read the references in the paper.


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Maybe you should also add titanium since it is present in plant tissue?
> 
> Silica and sulfur are easily and cheaply available to plants from the media and don't need to be added in the fertilizer



OMG,:rollhappy: in water in soil there is some 3-15ppm Silicon available and that is enough, in typical compost there is 10-25ppm extractable Silicon, in shoots there can be 30-500ppm Si.
Ok, my gut-feeling tells that sooner or later the available silicon is depleted and growth stops. Then its time to repot; or perhaps wait for compost-decomposition?



Rick said:


> Don't forget palladium!!
> 
> http://www.arbico-organics.com/downloads/maxicrop-kelp-analysis.pdf
> 
> ...



Let us assume that there is no more available silicon in the compost and that there is no silicon in the water(RO). All silicon has to be supplied with kelp extract having 0.16% silicon according to the above link. If 5ppm silicon is a good number(enough), then the irrigation water must contain 3125ppm kelp. A reasonable number?. BUT you have to do it in every watering, always! Gets pretty expensive if you ask meoke: and if the right number is 0,5ppm, then 313ppm has to be added to the water, still quite expensive. Of course, this is just playing with numbers, but keep in mind that the plants absorb just as much silicon as many of the other elements like phosporous and calcium. And for that sake potassiumoke: So why do you not care about Si fertilizing what if silicon deficiency makes the plants prone to infections?


----------



## keithrs (Mar 3, 2013)

What ever happen to folks using pro-tek?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2013)

keithrs said:


> What ever happen to folks using pro-tek?



Obviously it does not have much verified effect! oke:
At least not enough to brag about.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> You equate sulfur to titanium with respect to plant nutritional requirements? That is an ignorant statement.




No, I did not equate Titanium to Sulfur. But why do you disregard it's importance? Because it is a low % of total leaf mass?
Perhaps it is "ignorant" (recycle your word) to assume that just because one element is present in high percentages it is more important than one that is present in low amounts.

Ignorant studies:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017616178880138X
http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/50934.pdf
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/10/4/821.full.pdf


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> No, I did not equate Titanium to Sulfur. But why do you disregard it's importance? Because it is a low % of total leaf mass?
> Perhaps it is "ignorant" (recycle your word) to assume that just because one element is present in high percentages it is more important than one that is present in low amounts.
> 
> Ignorant studies:
> ...



Yes, I certainly did err. I had no idea that anyone had ever made claims that titanium had a beneficial effect on plant nutrition. So you are quite correct; I was the one who was demonstrating significant ignorance.

Still, I have to say that I find the indications that titanium is beneficial, based on the references that you gave (though it is true that I could only access the summary for the 1st paper) to be a bit tenuous and at best only indicate that titanium may be beneficial not that it is essential. Sodium is sometimes considered beneficial though not essential. Sulfur, OTOH, is known to be essential.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 3, 2013)

Rick said:


> Odd and heretical. Go ahead and read the references in the paper.



Just based on the Orchids article I find a number of points to critique. I was thinking of going to the botanical library at the local arboretum to see which of those references I could find there and I am friendly with one of the botanists there so perhaps he could get me access to some of the other references. But then, if I did all that I would probably have a number of points that I would want to challenge you on but that would most likely result in my being warned by the moderators that I should be nice or be banned. I am already on thin ice over at OrchidBoard because I was so rude as to criticize some erroneous statements that people had made.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> J but that would most likely result in my being warned by the moderators that I should be nice or be banned. I am already on thin ice over at OrchidBoard because I was so rude as to criticize some erroneous statements that people had made.



No, You won't get banned from this forum for arguing your opinions.
Yes, you will get ignored if you are rude and attack persons rather than ideas.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Yes, I certainly did err. I had no idea that anyone had ever made claims that titanium had a beneficial effect on plant nutrition. So you are quite correct; I was the one who was demonstrating significant ignorance.
> 
> Still, I have to say that I find the indications that titanium is beneficial, based on the references that you gave (though it is true that I could only access the summary for the 1st paper) to be a bit tenuous and at best only indicate that titanium may be beneficial not that it is essential. Sodium is sometimes considered beneficial though not essential. Sulfur, OTOH, is known to be essential.



There are many studies done on Titanium as plant nutrient. I don't think any of them prove anything about it's true value. One trial absolutely proved it could 100% replace iron in the formation of chlorophyll. Then some time later another trial proved that it could not replace iron.

That is my point about scientific trials not being proof that certain nutrients are absolute at a certain ppm in leaf tissue. To accept a scientific paper just because it was written by a scholar and published does not really make it true. It only makes it accepted fact until someone else has a different idea and publishes "new" findings. In reality all trials are biased because the people running them have a tendency to see things that prove their point so data is going to be skewed.

Sulfur...yes plant tissue has a high percentage of sulfur. But does that mean that plants need to uptake a certain amount constantly? Not necessarily.
Maybe they do benefit from higher applications but experience over years have not shown the need to go beyond what is in MSU. The same holds true for Silica, just no real indication that it is needed on a daily basis.

Do plants need Silica from soluble compounds? Maybe. Can plant roots extract Silica from solid sand? Why not? Who knows what a root can actually get done?

Why attack K-lite as not having enough Sulfur? K-lite was a set of ratios that were chosen based on Ricks experiments and research supplemented with input from ST growers. Then that set of desired ratios was tweaked so the company could actually blend a fertilizer that could be packaged for use. So far the chosen ratio is proving to be very good. Would it benefit from the addition of more sulfur or silica? Maybe it would but I really doubt the improvement could be measured. 
Maybe plant tissue analysis would show higher levels of sulfur and silica...but that does not mean the plants grew any better or flowered any better, it only means the plant absorbed more. 
Just because it reports high in tissue analysis does not mean it contributes to good plant health.


----------



## Secundino (Mar 3, 2013)

To accept a scientific paper just because it was written by a scholar and published does not really make it true. It only makes it accepted fact until someone else has a different idea and publishes "new" findings.

Thats not right. You make an experiment and reach conclusions. As long as other scientist can repeat the same experiment with same results, they will necessarily accept the conclusions and so verify the first result. 
Sulfur is a constitutive element of proteins. So a plant that is growing MUST of course uptake sulphur in some form as long as it grows and builts up biomass. How else would the cells be able to make proteins? I don't care if it is on a daily basis or just mondays and fridays.

K-lite is a very interesting point of view (but was not really the issue of this topic). Now, after reading the papers, I still think its interesting, but, as already has been pointed out by Stone, up to now we can just say that after two years K-lite does no harm. 
But as far as I understand it, not only the feeding has been changed, also the container (pot vs. basket) and the media (more moss, less bark). 

If I had made any photograph then I could show you the big improvement in health and growing of my orchids when I finally installed a fan 24/7! No rot so far, the last two years! Stiff leaves... and so on. 
All parameters act simultaneously, some add, some interfere, some are synergistic. We must take them in account altogether at the end, but until then, it is necessary to know how the Si (and other essential elements) comes into a plant! Active transport? Passive transport? Through micorrhiza? And which of all them are limiting elements? 

I still learned that K hardens the plants tissues when fully grown preventing posible infections. So in the meanwhile I'll be closely watching my plants before introducing drastic changes.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Just based on the Orchids article I find a number of points to critique. I was thinking of going to the botanical library at the local arboretum to see which of those references I could find there and I am friendly with one of the botanists there so perhaps he could get me access to some of the other references. But then, if I did all that I would probably have a number of points that I would want to challenge you on but that would most likely result in my being warned by the moderators that I should be nice or be banned. I am already on thin ice over at OrchidBoard because I was so rude as to criticize some erroneous statements that people had made.



All of those references were pulled off the internet (though some articles I had to pay for). More than half of them have been linked to this site in various threads. Sometimes several times over the last 2 years, and by multiple contributors on ST.

You can challenge all you want. That's what they are there for. I find it more rude/inappropriate to challenge the material in the paper without knowing/understanding the material that went into it in the first place.

However the results stand for themselves beyond the learning and understanding that went into the process in the first place. So if you want to challenge, then you need to come up with an explanation for the positive results that growers are getting with this system.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

Secundino said:


> I still learned that K hardens the plants tissues when fully grown preventing posible infections. So in the meanwhile I'll be closely watching my plants before introducing drastic changes.




You need to come up with the paper on that one. I have more than 1 that says that cell wall integrity is based on either Ca and or Si, and the more K you plow into a plant the less Ca and Mg the plant retains.

I have seen some documentation that potash solutions (silicates of potassium) will do as you prescribe above, but the effect is due to silicon not K.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

Secundino said:


> If I had made any photograph then I could show you the big improvement in health and growing of my orchids when I finally installed a fan 24/7!




Already did this starting 2003, and went through iterations of mister/fogger/wetpad to enforce optimal humidity years ago (years before low K). And it did make a difference for me 10 years ago.

The baskets which a lot of you are focusing on as alternative variables are definitely not universal in my collection or for others. Many of the improved plants in my collection are mounted, or in bark, CHC, or Semi hydro conditions.

So how do you explain all those improvements if they were never repotted or remounted?


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Obviously it does not have much verified effect! oke:
> At least not enough to brag about.



Count me in on that too. I jumped on the Protekt bandwagon several years ago, and it was a bust for me.

I still have 1/2 a quart if someone wants to buy it.


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> So why do you not care about Si fertilizing what if silicon deficiency makes the plants prone to infections?



Do you have a good number for silicon requirements of orchids? I know its high in grass, and horsetail, but is it really needed in large quantities for orchids?

Then if you are worried about supplying it to the super limited market of growers who grow only in pure water with no organic medium, what would you use as a dry readily soluble source?

Also 300 or so ppm of material is very small. A 1/4 tsp/gal is over 250ppm How is that going to break your bank?

One of the papers referenced in the low K article says that it is the presence of Ca that combats disease in plants by improving cell wall structure (not Si).


----------



## Rick (Mar 3, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> So what you seem to be saying is that any proportions of any nutrient will be optimal (except, or course, for potassium which has to be strictly controlled).
> I find your position to be quite odd.



Actually not odd at all for toxicologists, but odd for chemists and engineers.


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 3, 2013)

Stone said:


> Its the Potassium that regulates the stretching not the Poke:



all things considered, if you put too much phosphorus on crops, they will stretch. growing a few hundred thousand plants has revealed that quite handily


----------



## Stone (Mar 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > Basically plants are able to forage what they need from what is available and both silica and sulfur seem to be available from many different places for the plants in most growing conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Secundino said:


> To accept a scientific paper just because it was written by a scholar and published does not really make it true. It only makes it accepted fact until someone else has a different idea and publishes "new" findings.
> 
> Thats not right. You make an experiment and reach conclusions. As long as other scientist can repeat the same experiment with same results, they will necessarily accept the conclusions and so verify the first result.



That does not mean the results are the true reality. It only means that the methods they used yielded those results. It is very go information but i don't feel it is always the final answer....so we disagree.



> Sulfur is a constitutive element of proteins. So a plant that is growing MUST of course uptake sulphur in some form as long as it grows and builts up biomass. How else would the cells be able to make proteins? I don't care if it is on a daily basis or just mondays and fridays.



Sure but the percentage of sulfur in plant tissue does not indicate the volume or frequency it needs to be available. (It works best on Wednesdays)



> K-lite is a very interesting point of view (but was not really the issue of this topic). Now, after reading the papers, I still think its interesting, but, as already has been pointed out by Stone, up to now we can just say that after two years K-lite does no harm.



You sure do read the K-lite reports differently than I do. I only remember one negative report and that was false info. All the rest people report positive.



> But as far as I understand it, not only the feeding has been changed, also the container (pot vs. basket) and the media (more moss, less bark).



No a lot of people simply switched fertilizers. Recently one posted positive results and I questioned him whether he had repotted and he did only on some plants. But his observation was positive for all plants.



> If I had made any photograph then I could show you the big improvement in health and growing of my orchids when I finally installed a fan 24/7! No rot so far, the last two years! Stiff leaves... and so on.



Every time you make an improvement in culture you will see positive results.
Can you prove the stiff leaves and no rot is a result of the fans being on 24/7? Or is that simply your observation? By your previous comments I should not believe your reslts and ask you for a research trial to prove the 27/7 fan helped your plants.



> All parameters act simultaneously, some add, some interfere, some are synergistic. We must take them in account altogether at the end, but until then, it is necessary to know how the Si (and other essential elements) comes into a plant! Active transport? Passive transport? Through micorrhiza? And which of all them are limiting elements?



Yes and all these things are unknown. The casual addition of silica in fertilizer solutions has not shown any real noticeable results in orchids. Not enough to consider it as a daily supplement requirement.



> I still learned that K hardens the plants tissues when fully grown preventing posible infections. So in the meanwhile I'll be closely watching my plants before introducing drastic changes.



Is this something you learned yourself or are you following scientific publications?


----------



## Stone (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> > You need to come up with the paper on that one.
> 
> 
> Here's one on K and abiotic stresses
> http://www.ipipotash.org/udocs/The ...tal effects of abiotic stresses in plants.pdf


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Stone said:


> As I mentioned earlier, with modern and largely inert modern potting media like bark, stones, baked clay, charcoal, perlite, sand, marble, polystyrene etc etc etc, well we are basically growing hydroponically so its vital to get your nutrients correct. The plants can forage all they like but they won't find much with the above media and RO or rain water. Even my tap water is so pure that I MUST supply Sulphur along with everything else.



No argument about this. But how do you explain plants growing in inert baked clay media, watered with RO water, only given MSU fertilizer and growing indoors under lights and the plants grow from flask to flower. Where did all the silica come from?



> We can argue about the proportions and ratios but until we have definate information to the contrary, I'll continue to give what convention says I should. ( and remember we are talking about many decades of horticultural experience including countless trials with countless species )That convention says: K/N ratio of 0.5 to 1 or as high as 2 in cold dark weather.
> P/N ratio of 0.06 to 0.15, ( maybe even lower would be good for some plants )S/N ratio of 0.12 and Ca at least double Mg.



I remember the decades pretty well, I have now gone through 5 of them growing orchids. I also remember listening to a professor saying there was some evidence that regular applications of liquid fertilizer MAY increase greenhouse production so I went home to my greenhouse and started my own trials. I knew a lot of the people that wrote the "conventions" (most are dead now). I heard their stories about how stupid and wrong their competitors were, how they botched up the trials and faked the results just to get published. Every commercial grower starts out following the "conventions" but quickly learn to alter the "conventions". Since they are commercial and not scientific they never publish or share what they actually know about plant nutrition. So there are "conventions" and then there is the real world of plant growing.



> Thats why I also metioned earlier that with a very the high cation exchange of ''old fashioned'' media you hardly have to worry about all this juggling of nutrients and pH fluctuations. But with inert media, the balance is critical and so easy to mess up. What we need is a high CEC/buffer capacity media that won't rot!



That sounds logical but in my opinion we don't want a high CEC media for potted plant culture. When your media hangs on to nutrients you can never be sure what you actually are allowing the plants to have access to. Better to have inert media and supply what is needed, assuming what is needed is known..


----------



## Stone (Mar 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> No argument about this. But how do you explain plants growing in inert baked clay media, watered with RO water, only given MSU fertilizer and growing indoors under lights and the plants grow from flask to flower. Where did all the silica come from?
> Easy! plants don't NEED silica But some do better with it. Mind you we don't even know yet if paphs are better with silica but probably safe to assume???


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Stone said:


> Mind you we don't even know yet if paphs are better with silica but probably safe to assume???



Why is it safe to assume that?


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> Actually not odd at all for toxicologists, but odd for chemists and engineers.



I find it odd because there is no evidence to support your assertion that potassium is toxic to plants unless the quantities are strictly controlled.

I have about 150 orchids that I have been cultivating for one to two years now (and a few much longer than that); I do not see any signs of this alledged potassium toxicity.


----------



## keithrs (Mar 4, 2013)

You know what assuming does!?! oke:


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> All of those references were pulled off the internet (though some articles I had to pay for). More than half of them have been linked to this site in various threads. Sometimes several times over the last 2 years, and by multiple contributors on ST.
> 
> You can challenge all you want. That's what they are there for. I find it more rude/inappropriate to challenge the material in the paper without knowing/understanding the material that went into it in the first place.


I have read the Orchids article several times and I do not see any even mildly compelling argument to support your potassium toxicity thesis. Generally, citations are given to support the information used to make an argument not to provide the argument itself but are you saying that the citations you gave contain some compelling argument in support of your potassium toxicity thesis that you did not present in the Orchids article?



> However the results stand for themselves beyond the learning and understanding that went into the process in the first place. So if you want to challenge, then you need to come up with an explanation for the positive results that growers are getting with this system.


First, in these few anecdotal reports more than just potassium level has been changed. Also, there are many more people who do not use "K-lite" and who do not see this alledged potassium toxicity.


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2013)

If I may throw my two cents in....

Much of Rick's thesis is based upon his work outside of orchids, in which he has seen a great deal of evidence that supports the notion of potassium toxicity in living entities. Reasearch into the biospheres where epiphytes originate support that the ion is in limited supply, so logically may be in very small demand and/or the plants might have evolved to it becoming a contaminant at higher dosages, rather than a beneficial nutrient. (Seems to me that is true of all nutrient ions.)

As a ceramic engineer and materials scientist, I see parallels within glass and ceramic systems in which the potassium ion is preferentially bound to crystal substructures where it can interfere with the target reactions. I have noted a lot of similar materials science-nature analogs over the years, so the fact that it may happen in living systems does not seem unfounded or far fetched at all.

One might also argue that "people who do not see this alleged potassium toxicity" 1) have not seen it *yet*, 2) don't know the reason for what their plants are demonstrating, or 3) they may never see it at all. There are pollutants we are exposed to that are considered "toxic", yet some will cruise on through life with no apparent issue, while others succumb.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> I find it odd because there is no evidence to support your assertion that potassium is toxic to plants unless the quantities are strictly controlled.
> 
> I have about 150 orchids that I have been cultivating for one to two years now (and a few much longer than that); I do not see any signs of this alledged potassium toxicity.



After only two years growing orchids I would not expect you to be able to recognize the issues. The "alleged" Potassium toxicity issue is a long term affect and is not noticed in short term growth.

Do you know what Potassium toxicity looks like in orchids? What are you expecting to see?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

keithrs said:


> You know what assuming does!?! oke:



Yes, it kills plants.
:noangel:


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

Ray said:


> If I may throw my two cents in....
> 
> Much of Rick's thesis is based upon his work outside of orchids, in which he has seen a great deal of evidence that supports the notion of potassium toxicity in living entities.


Yet when we were discussing this on OrchidBoard and I presented some data from barley, your dismissive response was "barley isn't an orchid". Yet you are happy to accept data about potassium toxicity in fresh water mussels as being relevant to orchids. If we are going to do that then why don't we extrapolate from saltwater fishes and conclude that orchids should be watered with a 3% sodium chloride solution.



> Reasearch into the biospheres where epiphytes originate support that the ion is in limited supply,


At most that demonstrates that plants are able to selectively scavenge what they need.



> so logically may be in very small demand and/or the plants might have evolved to it becoming a contaminant at higher dosages, rather than a beneficial nutrient. (Seems to me that is true of all nutrient ions.)


"Might have", yes, but no evidence that this is actually the case wrt potassium.



> As a ceramic engineer and materials scientist, I see parallels within glass and ceramic systems in which the potassium ion is preferentially bound to crystal substructures where it can interfere with the target reactions. I have noted a lot of similar materials science-nature analogs over the years, so the fact that it may happen in living systems does not seem unfounded or far fetched at all.


Again, "might have". Speculation but no evidence.



> One might also argue that "people who do not see this alleged potassium toxicity" 1) have not seen it *yet*


How many years does it take?



> 2) don't know the reason for what their plants are demonstrating,


Yes, or maybe it is invisible pink unicorns that are causing all the problems that I don't even know that my plants have.



> or 3) they may never see it at all. There are pollutants we are exposed to that are considered "toxic", yet some will cruise on through life with no apparent issue, while others succumb.


Yes, this seems likely.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> After only two years growing orchids I would not expect you to be able to recognize the issues. The "alleged" Potassium toxicity issue is a long term affect and is not noticed in short term growth.


So how many years does it take and why does it take so long? And assuming that it does take so long for ill effects to show up then doesn't this discredit the anecdotal reports of people seeing improvement in their plants just a few months after switching to "K-lite"?



> Do you know what Potassium toxicity looks like in orchids? What are you expecting to see?


Rick has a long list of dire symtoms listed in the Orchids article; mostly culminating with death.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> At most that demonstrates that plants are able to selectively scavenge what they need.



Some plants are 'Hoarders". Just like people they might eat what they want but that does not mean gluttony leads to a long life.



> Yes, or maybe it is invisible pink unicorns that are causing all the problems that I don't even know that my plants have.



That is an ignorant statement.....Get your facts straight....
1. Unicorns don't cause problems they are the source of "good".
2. Unicorns are not pink.
3. Unicorns are not invisible, if they were they would not have a color.
4. You'll never understand #5.
5. Silica



[/QUOTE]


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> I have about 150 orchids that I have been cultivating for one to two years now (and a few much longer than that); I do not see any signs of this alledged potassium toxicity.



So your orchids basically only live 2 years? Except the few that have lived longer?


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> So your orchids basically only live 2 years? Except the few that have lived longer?


I don't believe that I said that but I will restate anyways:

Over the past 2 (actually 2 1/2) years I have purchased more than 160 plants and most are still alive and seemingly very healthy. The ones that are no longer alive were either destroyed because they were infected with CymMV or ORSV (about 10 plants) or they were from a batch of plants that came in bareroot (essentially no root) from Brazil last summer and approximately 25% of those never recovered. Of the few orchids that I acquired more than 2 1/2 years ago they are still all healthy except for a couple that one of my cats destroyed.

I doubt that "K-lite" would have saved the Brazilian imports. Being transported no-root from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere is a bit stressful to the plants.

I only have about half a dozen paphiopedilums. I have most every cattleya species and many laelia species then some catasetinae and an assortment of various other genera, mostly all species.


----------



## Rick (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> So how many years does it take and why does it take so long? And assuming that it does take so long for ill effects to show up then doesn't this discredit the anecdotal reports of people seeing improvement in their plants just a few months after switching to "K-lite"?
> 
> 
> Rick has a long list of dire symtoms listed in the Orchids article; mostly culminating with death.



I realize that most people asscociate toxicity with short term lethality, but apparently you are missing 50% of the article. There are photos of 3 plants in the article that could be considered "case histories". As noted in the article none of them are dead, two were blooming, and one was even awarded pre low K feeding. Most growers would probably have considered these plants normal, or come up with all kinds of other excuses for sub par performance. Growth and bloom quality increased dramatically AFTER low K initiation. If it wasn't for low K feeding I would not have realized the true potential (not just 2 year life/death) of these three examples. But I have dozens more examples in my collection (though lack of before/after pictures).

Impairment (though still alive) is a demonstration of toxicity. As well as susceptablitiy to disease. 
Short term improvements in growth, or reduction in disease incidence by reducing a toxicant are good evidence of the chronic toxicity issues associated with that particlur material. The references in the paper alude to these aspects.

Seems like you are more interested in debunking the paper rather than reading and understanding it. What's your agenda?


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 4, 2013)

omg, i'm not usually prone to using internet abbreviations since i don't text (gasp), but omg omg omg lol :rollhappy:

I've tried politely to point out what i'll type out below before, and others have made similar statements in support of other points.

I don't believe that the whole point of the pk-lite testing is to 'prove' that it is the answer to all. Is klite 'right'? no. 

is there one fertilizer regime that works for all orchids, in all conditions, with all cultural things that every different grower across the globe? no.

is it unreasonable to attack a desire to find out if something works or not, that is something that nobody has tried before? yes.

do we who are trying pk-lite think that it is the final 'answer' to fertilizing orchids? no. one food for all plants is beyond unreasonable

is it beyond unreasonable to attack an attempt to find out something new, and share what has been found? yes

is it better to collect the present amount of information gathered, and show it to a larger audience, so that constructive criticism can help to refine/redefine what testing might be needed, or just talk amongst selves and keep all to self, not allow observation/critique? better to put out and gather input/more information

have there been many purported statements through the years, about what 'works' for orchids? yes. 

have they all worked? no. 

are there many that haven't worked as described? yes.

are there people who grow their plants in ancient bark and never fertilize? yes. 

are there people/vendors who throw any old fertilizer on their plants and they grow famously? yes (andy's orchids and probably others come to mind)

do all factors of plant nutrition depend on all of the different input? yes.

are limiting factors dependent solely on one other factor to control them? no.

are there a large number of growers who have used the more recent, improved blended fertilizers that see, in their conditions and methods, poor growth and death of plants? yes.

were there people before that who probably saw decline and/or death with what they were using, meaning a different fert before that? mostly likely yes.

is there large amounts of 'traditional' orchid growing information out there that were first printed in a newsletter by someone wanting to 'help' orchid growers have better plants, but that information was only pertinent to that environmental area they were writing from? (say florida, hawaii, california, new york; very specific and different climate and growing zones) yes.

are there other cultural advices that were presented from research about farm crops? yes.

are there cultural advices that have presented for a long time that were created by a company that had direct stock (so to speak) in the product, which had no scientific basis? yes.

do the people trying out the pk-lite experiment have 'stock' in fertilizer companies? I would say no, but don't think so is more accurate answer

are there lots of people that believe most of what comes along, without knowing if it is good or bad? yes.

are there people that want to know why their orchids are doing badly or dying? yes.

are there people who are willing to do general trials to try and see if something changes for the better? yes.

are there people who are getting carried away because they feel their point is being ignored or they feel that they must uncover some sort of fraud? yes.

are there people who feel that they must be 'right'? yes.

are some people getting tired because they have seen, over a long term, relationships between some things, and want to help others, but some just want to say 'nay' without becoming part of the process? yes.

are there people who have grown very large numbers of plants, not necessarily orchids, and can see relationships between uses of fertilizers and results, but aren't 'peer reviewed'? yes.

should everyone write down what they do, and point out if their culture shows 'good' or 'bad' results? (specifically important culture/environment/media/fertilizer etc points) yes.

all of these points have been made by many different people, collectively, during the course of the pk-lite idea tossing and very general trials. there are many more points, but my fingers are tired and probably nobody is still reading this far down 

the whole thing is, there is lots of 'information' that is out there for orchid culture, and for a number of growers who have certain overall factors that cause limited growth or death of their plants, and they have tried other things with limited success/failure, have seen that trying this present stage of pk-lite, have seen some improvement over the past recent history of their growing. they would like to share this information with people who also have problems with their culture, to see if it helps. if it helps, then that is information. if it doesn't, that is information. there are growers who have such good growing conditions and other 'stuff', that they can grow apparently nice orchids that flower, while throwing either no fertilizer, or any fertilizer on their plants, and they apparently thrive. if someone has great results with no regard to what type of nutrients they supply, then by all means they should supply all of their pertinent conditions, so it can be seen, if possible, why this is so...

are there thousands of orchid species in the world? yes.
are there more thousands of orchid hybrids in the world? yes.
does everyone have their plants in the same conditions? no.
do they all use the same media/fert. water light pots etc no.
do the people trying out this pk-lite experiment think that it is the answer to all orchid problems? no (though that is my assumption/understanding)
will there always be people who can do well with their orchids no matter what they do to them (in general ) yes.
are there people who have that same kind of luck that they can be fishing in a boat with others, and the one catches all the fish, even though they are all using the exact same tackle? yes (but not me grrrr)

with all of this being a given, it puzzles me that there are people who are so vehement to try and 'disprove' that pk-lite may work. in some conditions it may very well help alleviate certain issues and allow better growth. if your conditions are in the sweet spot, then you may not need any particular fertilizer. msu-type fertilizer has been marketed or touted for a long time as being 'the answer' for growing orchids. there are lots of people/vendors who don't have success using these types, for their conditions. are there any people out on forums and such who are vehemently trying to 'disprove' that msu type fertilizers 'are the answer' and getting excited about it? I don't think so....

are plants perfect machines that take up this, put out that, perform exactly and always as expected according to the rules of physics/chemistry? no.

are there people who hate change of any kind, or take up personal feelings in relation to an idea, and don't like new things that come along? (distrust of the new or unfamiliar) heck yes. I heard some ridiculous examples of human nature on the radio yesterday. 
also reviewing a historical perspective of scientific discovery, both in print and hearing on radio, reveals that any new idea usually leads to absolute refusal or rebuttal, even if true results point out a fact. people have died because they made a new discovery and people were so hard set that the new thing was 'wrong' that they would kill to prevent this information from being accepted. old ideas are held onto, stubbornly, tooth and claw, until such overwhelming evidence points out the new 'discovery' has merit, and then all jump on that bandwagon. ..then, that new fact is stubbornly held onto, even to the point of ridiculousness..... and all new challenges to the 'status quo' are fought with every inch of life.

are we all human and subject to frustration and probably could use better ways to explain/put forth their ideas in constructive ways? absolutely

if someone has read all this, I have to give them a medal


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> but my fingers are tired and probably nobody is still reading this far down



I am.
:clap:


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> if someone has read all this, I have to give them a medal



To get the medal do we have to agree with everything you wrote?


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 4, 2013)

hey! i'll have to find a medal for you :wink: I got a little carried away 




gonewild said:


> To get the medal do we have to agree with everything you wrote?


nooo, just finishing reading it all is enough! actually I would be worried if someone agreed to everything that I wrote :rollhappy:


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> hey! i'll have to find a medal for you :wink: I got a little carried away
> 
> nooo, just finishing reading it all is enough! actually I would be worried if someone agreed to everything that I wrote :rollhappy:



I don't disagree with anything you wrote, WELL, maybe the part about us all being human. (Unicorns are not Human). Well, and then there was the part about.....

Well written, thanks for taking the time.


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 4, 2013)

ty, and welcome. trying to help balance things a little, perspective


----------



## Secundino (Mar 4, 2013)

And I did, til the end.

The major ions influential in aquatic
toxicity are the same critical ions for all
plants, including orchids. 

It is this statement that made me sceptical. I'm not willing to compare epihytes with mussels, and I'm not going to try Cl with my orchids.
My tap water contains 1.500 - 2.000something ppm, so I know what I am speaking of, I don't drink that stuff nor use it for my orchids nor my freshawater fish und shrimps.

I do not say, that K-(P-) lite does not work, but I don't agree with the conclusions in how it does. (If it does in the long term.)


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> I don't believe that I said that but I will restate anyways:
> 
> Over the past 2 (actually 2 1/2) years I have purchased more than 160 plants and most are still alive and seemingly very healthy. The ones that are no longer alive were either destroyed because they were infected with CymMV or ORSV (about 10 plants) or they were from a batch of plants that came in bareroot (essentially no root) from Brazil last summer and approximately 25% of those never recovered. Of the few orchids that I acquired more than 2 1/2 years ago they are still all healthy except for a couple that one of my cats destroyed.
> 
> ...



No David you did not say that....I was just trying to get your attention about a point. It worked and you revealed what you are basing your comments on. The concept of Potassium toxicity reveals itself after long term growth. It is not seen as one symptom. In fact it does not really have a symptom. It manifests as many different problems or none at all.

Perhaps there may be an issue with the term "toxic". Potassium is not toxic but in excess amounts it looks like it creates a "toxic" condition within the plant. By reducing the application ratio of Potassium, users of K-lite are discovering that the toxic condition is reversed. 
In Rick's research he has formed a theory and given reasons to prove it as being possible. Users testing the theory are all reporting positive results. Based on those results it is correct to believe the theory is correct.

Over the years that I have been involved in horticulture I don't remember hearing anyone suggest that excess Potassium might be a serious problem. When Rick first presented his theory the lights came on and what he said made perfect sense and well worth trying. This theory can not be discredited by library research or quoting conventional horticultural practices.

No disrespect but 2.5 years experience with growing orchids is not enough to have experienced the potassium toxicity problem or at least not enough experience to recognize the problem.

You said most of your plants are "seemingly very healthy". Plants suffering from Potassium excess may very well seem healthy but in reality could be growing much better.

As a new orchid grower you should welcome a concept that will make your plants grow better and not try to discredit it by going to the library.

Have you tried K-lite?


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2013)

I deserve that medal, too.

I'll answer that question from the middle: to the best of my knowledge, only two people have any kind of "stock" in this, if not necesarily in fertilizer companies. Rick (for his reputation), and me (for having purchased the material from the fertilizer company, so needing to resell it).

Those of us who have been in the orchid game long enough know Rick well enough that his reputation is not at stake.

I spent more on wine over the weekend than I have tied up in my fertilizer inventory, so I don't care. (No, I didn't drink it all.) And there's the fact that I am still a bit worried about potential deficiencies - haven't seen them, but there's still a little question mark stuck in the back of my brain.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Secundino said:


> And I did, til the end.
> 
> 
> > I'm not willing to compare epihytes with mussels,
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Ray said:


> I spent more on wine over the weekend than I have tied up in my fertilizer inventory, so I don't care.



So there is a reason you need to sell more fertilizer!
Something has to pay for the wine, it ain't cheap.

Does Rick also have a drinking problem?

Now we are getting to the bottom of this scam.

Maybe I should start selling K-lite so I can afford to drink wine?


----------



## Rick (Mar 4, 2013)

Secundino said:


> The major ions influential in aquatic
> toxicity are the same critical ions for all
> plants, including orchids.
> 
> I don't drink that stuff nor use it for my orchids nor my freshawater fish und shrimps.



Why do you disagree with my statement, and then turn around and claim that your own water is unfit for use (to non orchid targets) due to a major ion issues. That's exactly what I said!!


----------



## Rick (Mar 4, 2013)

Secundino said:


> I'm not willing to compare epihytes with mussels



What you missed in the use of mussel toxicity in the paper has nothing to do with comparison of mussel versus orchids or any other species.

The argument was of environmental relevance. Mussels exist downstream of orchid terrestrial habitats. So if mussels are found (which are acutely sensitive to K) then K is not present in the orchid terrestrial environment either.

You wouldn't drink (or expose your plants and aquarium critters to high chloride water), and your aquarium critters would not survive long at standard fertilizer levels of K either.

So why do you think it is neccessary to expose your orchids to concentrations of K that are orders of magnitude higher than they are exposed to in the wild?


----------



## Rick (Mar 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Does Rick also have a drinking problem?



I will soon!


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> I will soon!



Now that K-lite sales are taking off you can afford it!


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> So why do you think it is neccessary to expose your orchids to concentrations of K that are orders of magnitude higher than they are exposed to in the wild?



Grow or die you lowly plant!


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> No David you did not say that....I was just trying to get your attention about a point. It worked and you revealed what you are basing your comments on.


Hmm, what was it that you felt you would need to trick me into revealing?



> The concept of Potassium toxicity reveals itself after long term growth. It is not seen as one symptom. In fact it does not really have a symptom. It manifests as many different problems or none at all.


So then it seems you are saying that the benefits of "K-lite" is not a testable hypothesis; one just has to believe.



> Perhaps there may be an issue with the term "toxic". Potassium is not toxic but in excess amounts it looks like it creates a "toxic" condition within the plant. By reducing the application ratio of Potassium, users of K-lite are discovering that the toxic condition is reversed.


A toxic condition that can't be seen; it seems that we are back to unicorns.



> In Rick's research he has formed a theory and given reasons to prove it as being possible.


What research, you can't mean library research since in a few more sentences you will disparage the utility of "going to the library".



> Users testing the theory are all reporting positive results. Based on those results it is correct to believe the theory is correct.


Yes, there are these anecdotal reports. Many people believe in homeopathy also but I don't. Did you hear about the homeopath who forgot to take his medicine? ...... He died of an overdose.



> Over the years that I have been involved in horticulture I don't remember hearing anyone suggest that excess Potassium might be a serious problem. When Rick first presented his theory the lights came on and what he said made perfect sense and well worth trying. This theory can not be discredited by library research or quoting conventional horticultural practices.


People say the same about homeopathy - you just have to believe. I was at a rock and mineral show the other day and overheard one person explaining to another the mental benefits of the energies from the various stones - obsidian was said to absorb and remove negativity, I guess I should have bought some obsidian. 



> As a new orchid grower you should welcome a concept that will make your plants grow better and not try to discredit it by going to the library.
> 
> Have you tried K-lite?


You discount library research so the only reason to expect that "K-lite" has an beneficial effects are a few anecdotal reports. So no, I don't see any reason to experiment with using k-lite.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> Seems like you are more interested in debunking the paper rather than reading and understanding it. What's your agenda?



There used to be a website for discussing Dr. Randall Mills' Theory of Classical Physics and the generation of power by utilizing the hydrogen-hydrino transition that Dr. Mills discovered. People there would ask me the same question.

I am not at all equating you to Dr. Randall Mills that would be a major insult. I used to refer to Dr. Mills as Randy Screwloose. For your amusement here is his website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/


----------



## Secundino (Mar 4, 2013)

Well, I feel that my english is far to simple to explain this scientific matters, but I try.

- I would not compare an orchid and a mussel, but would compare the function of orchid roots of groundbound and epiphytic species. I would compare the differences in ion transport - if there are - between velamen-covered roots and those without velamen.

- If there is no K downstream, this does NOT necessarily mean that there is no K where the orchids is growing streamup. Even if it sounds logic, you would have to meassure it in place to make this statement. Of course, it may likely be so, but without evidence it is an assumption.

- I agree that high ion concentrations are toxic to most living organisms. But I prefer to differentiate. Fe is essential to plants but is highly toxic to freshwater shrimps at same concentration. Like K ist obviously for mussels. So, I think you can compare this organisms, but I disagree when you say that BECAUSE K is toxic to mussels it is likely that it is for orchids as well BECAUSE they live upstream. Chaning two assumptions is no good basis for a theory. 

- I do not feed my orchids with heavy concentrations. Never said that nor intend to do so. 

- I DO think however that most orchids benefit from very low feeding. There is no dissensus here. If reducing the amount of K in fertilizers does not only reduce amount of ions but also enhance the uptake (?), assimilation (?) of other essential minerals, that is great. Sadly there is still no detailed knowlegde of how ion trasport works in velamen-coated roots. (At least I don't know if there is!:rollhappy

- Finally, I do not criticize you or your work, I criticize scientific methods. I need statements that I can verify; to say that there may be toxic effect, or there may be not, but there might be in the long term or not, but the plant will do better either way with k-lite: no, this does not satisfy my scientific ambition.


----------



## Rick (Mar 4, 2013)

Secundino said:


> -.
> 
> - If there is no K downstream, this does NOT necessarily mean that there is no K where the orchids is growing streamup. Even if it sounds logic, you would have to meassure it in place to make this statement. Of course, it may likely be so, but without evidence it is an assumption.



As an evnvironmental toxicologist I know that very soluble salts like K travel efficiently from upstream to downstream. But if you pull some of the referenced litterature (much of which has been discussed frequently on this forum over the last two years) you would see that there is no sink of concentrated potassium in the trees/rain/or air surrounding the trees, or washing down the cliffs. Limestone is almost completely devoid of K which is why I think that calcerous orchid species are more sensitve to high K compared to other species. Unfortunately for a hobbist article like this paper I cannot fit(nor is it appropriate to fit) every peice of data into the article.


----------



## Rick (Mar 4, 2013)

Secundino said:


> If reducing the amount of K in fertilizers does not only reduce amount of ions but also enhance the uptake (?), assimilation (?) of other essential minerals, that is great. Sadly there is still no detailed knowlegde of how ion trasport works in velamen-coated roots. (At least I don't know if there is!:rollhappy
> .



On a whole plant basis there is lots of detailed knowledge of the effects of K in plant tissues (Some of which are included in the article references which apparently you have not read).

The most prominent aspect is that K blocks/inhibits the uptake of Ca and Mg. (All plants not just epiphytic orchids). Now in one documented species (Rice) the high uptake rate of K caused a chain reaction (once Ca and Mg were very low) which retarded the uptake of phosphate. So at least in rice you can attribute excess K to inhibited uptake of 3 other vital nutrients. (I can give you more if you really need convincing, but I should be doing something else on the clock!!) One of the papers referenced is a very detailed K uptake mechansim of bromeliads that I suggest you read. Now I know you don't like to compare anything else to orchids, but Stone linked a paper to this site several weeks ago (not in time to add to the article) from a Cornell University study that showed the same leaf tissue drop in Ca/Mg in Phaleanopsis, Cattleya, and Cymbidium hybrids with increasing K. This was only a 9month study, and the only significant health concerns listed was leaf tip burn.


Now more debatable is the point to which Ca and Mg uptake inhibition is detrimental to orchid growth. Which life stage is most sensitive, standard dose rate/duration curves......plus all the competitve interactions within the plant and in the potting mix (which effects dose rate and frequency).......??????

But yes we do know, and I did supply information of the physiological basis for K toxicity in plants. (read the references).


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

Speaking of references:
In the Orchids article, top of page 168, it says:
"... several articles in the [Antec] reading room ... of the main points to take home ... [is] the ion exchange capacity of coconut husk favoring the monovalent cations (sodium and potassium) in favor of the divalent cations (magnesium and calcium)"

I don't see in the Antec articles where this is said. In fact the article says that it is easy to replace the sodium and potassium with calcium and magnesium by soaking in water with a small amout of calcium and magnesium salts. In fact the article goes on to say that even if you don't pretreat with Ca and Mg salts: "What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your *early fertilized irrigations ... [but] If you irrigate heavily as we recommend, the problem is quite temporary and limited*."

Emphasis added is mine.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Hmm, what was it that you felt you would need to trick me into revealing?



I did not try to trick you, but you did reveal your limited experience with orchids.



> So then it seems you are saying that the benefits of "K-lite" is not a testable hypothesis; one just has to believe.



No not at all. I am saying you can't see the symptoms. And like any hypothesis you either believe it or not or test it to see if it proves true.




> A toxic condition that can't be seen; it seems that we are back to unicorns.



Can you see the early symptoms of cancer?
Can you see the early symptoms of a stroke?
Not everything is something you can see and describe. 

Maybe what you call unicorns is what I call experience.



> What research, you can't mean library research since in a few more sentences you will disparage the utility of "going to the library".



Nothing wrong with going to the library to look up research that has already been done. But sorry I don't give the same value to researching paperwork as I do to experience directly with the subject being researched. 



> Yes, there are these anecdotal reports. Many people believe in homeopathy also but I don't. Did you hear about the homeopath who forgot to take his medicine? ...... He died of an overdose.



So you consider the reports experienced orchid growers are giving about K-lite as homeopathic?



> People say the same about homeopathy - you just have to believe. I was at a rock and mineral show the other day and overheard one person explaining to another the mental benefits of the energies from the various stones - obsidian was said to absorb and remove negativity, I guess I should have bought some obsidian.



The obsidian would not have hurt you.



> You discount library research so the only reason to expect that "K-lite" has an beneficial effects are a few anecdotal reports. So no, I don't see any reason to experiment with using k-lite.



I don't discount library research at all but now I begin to discount your input based on your lack of experience and your refusal to consider advances in knowledge beyond what someone else has published.

Now what were you saying about Silica?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> There used to be a website for discussing Dr. Randall Mills' Theory of Classical Physics and the generation of power by utilizing the hydrogen-hydrino transition that Dr. Mills discovered. People there would ask me the same question.



How many years ago was that? Was it before or after you were born?
Seems like by know you might have learned the answer.


----------



## Rick (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> I don't see in the Antec articles where this is said. In fact the article says that it is easy to replace the sodium and potassium with calcium and magnesium by soaking in water with a small amout of calcium and magnesium salts. In fact the article goes on to say that even if you don't pretreat with Ca and Mg salts: "What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your .



You can only reverse the exchange from K to Ca if Ca/Mg has a higher solute concentration than K.

So if you feed even weak solutions of a fert with K higher than Ca/Mg it will preferentilally uptake K and give off the divalent in exchange. If the divalent was easier to move in than the mono, then CHC would not need pretreating for K residue, and you would get unlimited transfer of all ions out of CHC in RO water. But in study it has been demonstrated that it takes solutions (concentration not definced) of divalent cations to pull that last of the monovalents out of the matrix. The below is from the Antec ste. Looks like you took fragments and uncertainties of their material out of context.

To prepare the husk we first hydrate the bale in two 32 gallon containers at least overnight , and then transfer the hydrated husk and excess water to a second container that has had a large number of holes drilled into the bottom, and about six inches up the sides. After the husk drains, a steady stream of water is washed through until it appears to run clear from the container. Then the husk is again transferred back to the solid container and again covered with water with a few ounces each of Calcium Nitrate and Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salts) added at least overnight. The draining and washing procedure is repeated again using pure water, with the final rinse being extensive. At this point measurements have revealed virtually no significant leachable salts and a pH just slightly below neutral. The conditioning with calcium and magnesium is done because of the moderate Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the coconut husk. Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K) ions are strongly bound to the CHC. Laboratory comparative analysis of extracts of coconut husk products using distilled water versus a barium chloride solution demonstrate that as much as 2/3 of the Na and K may not be leached by water alone. What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your early fertilized irrigations, creating possible calcium and magnesium deficiencies and sodium and potassium excesses. If you irrigate heavily as we recommend, the problem is quite temporary and limited. Unfortunately, it seems to be more and more common to hear about people using less extensive irrigation practices, and under these circumstances problems may arise. The addition of calcium and magnesium in the wash stages allows for cation exchange to occur then, creating a more balanced state from the start.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> You can only reverse the exchange from K to Ca if Ca/Mg has a higher solute concentration than K.


This statement is not necessarily correct. The Antec article seems to say the opposite. Do you have a reference.



> So if you feed even weak solutions of a fert with K higher than Ca/Mg it will preferentilally uptake K and give off the divalent in exchange.


This would be undesireable for what reason? (When you say "it" I am assuming you mean the CHC)



> If the divalent was easier to move in than the mono, then CHC would not need pretreating for K residue,


Geez, you should read the Antec article. They say differently.



> and you would get unlimited transfer of all ions out of CHC in RO water.


No, you are wrong. If the K ion is ionically bound to an carboxylic acid moeity in the CHC then RO water will not displace it.



> But in study it has been demonstrated that it takes solutions (concentration not definced) of divalent cations to pull that last of the monovalents out of the matrix.


Yes, it takes a cation to displace another cation. The paper demonstrates nothing about the relative binding constants of monovalent vs divalent.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> The below is from the Antec ste. Looks like you took fragments and uncertainties of their material out of context.
> 
> To prepare the husk we first hydrate the bale in two 32 gallon containers at least overnight , and then transfer the hydrated husk and excess water to a second container that has had a large number of holes drilled into the bottom, and about six inches up the sides. After the husk drains, a steady stream of water is washed through until it appears to run clear from the container. Then the husk is again transferred back to the solid container and again covered with water with a few ounces each of Calcium Nitrate and Magnesium Sulfate (Epsom Salts) added at least overnight. The draining and washing procedure is repeated again using pure water, with the final rinse being extensive. At this point measurements have revealed virtually no significant leachable salts and a pH just slightly below neutral. The conditioning with calcium and magnesium is done because of the moderate Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the coconut husk. Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K) ions are strongly bound to the CHC. Laboratory comparative analysis of extracts of coconut husk products using distilled water versus a barium chloride solution demonstrate that as much as 2/3 of the Na and K may not be leached by water alone. What then happens is that you cation exchange calcium and magnesium for sodium and potassium in your early fertilized irrigations, creating possible calcium and magnesium deficiencies and sodium and potassium excesses. If you irrigate heavily as we recommend, the problem is quite temporary and limited. Unfortunately, it seems to be more and more common to hear about people using less extensive irrigation practices, and under these circumstances problems may arise. The addition of calcium and magnesium in the wash stages allows for cation exchange to occur then, creating a more balanced state from the start.



No, it seems that you lack any comprehension of this article.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2013)

Secundino said:


> Well, I feel that my english is far to simple to explain this scientific matters, but I try.



Lo siento, no se han dado cuenta que tienen en Inglés como su segundo idioma. Le leo las respuestas con un pensamiento diferente.

¿Quieres pruebas de que la teoría K-lite es cierto para satisfacer su deseo científica, pero esta prueba sólo está viniendo ahora. No hay ninguna referencia Rick puede citar para probar la teoría, porque nadie en el pasado ha pensado lo mismo. Este es un concepto nuevo y está demostrando así hasta este momento. Usted debe tratar de K-lite y danos tu opinión sincera después de ver el resultado.

_
Sorry I have not realized you have English as your second language. I will read your replies with a different thinking.

You want evidence that the K-lite theory is true to satisfy your scientific desire but this proof is just comming now. There is no reference Rick can quote to prove the theory because no one in the past has thought the same. This is a new concept and is proving true until this time. You should try K-lite and give us your honest opinion after seeing the result._


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 7, 2013)

Very interesting K-lite discussion, but I cannot understand the drama it is causing. Come on, guys - try it or keep doing what you've been doing. Some people are having success with it, that's great. It may be the silver bullet or it may not, there are too many other interdependent factors that affect the overall health of our plants. No need to get riled up over the theory of people who have done a lot of thinking in formulating it (and the fertilizer itself).

The next steps perhaps should be tweaking the formulations for different genera or growing conditions? This can get downright silly, and very impractical.

I'd like to steer this discussion back to silicon and soluble, bioavailable silicates. I'm a relative newbie (I grew orchids 20-15 years ago but had to give them up due to frequent business travel), having just gotten back to growing them. 

So take my musings for what they're worth, but I keep thinking about agar-agar. There is a reason it's used to germinate seeds, and I suspect part of that reason is that it contains a lot of soluble silica. Has anyone tried adding small amounts of it to water - not nearly enough to gel, but enough to supplement? Would seem like an easy solution to the silica deficiency problem - any thots?


----------



## Rick (Mar 7, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> So take my musings for what they're worth, but I keep thinking about agar-agar. Has anyone tried adding small amounts of it to water - Would seem like an easy solution to the silica deficiency problem - any thots?



How much silica is in agar? Since it is a marine algae (kelp product) is it more concentrated in silica than the kelp extracts that many of us already use, that I already suggested?

I don't think I've experienced any symptoms that I could say are caused by silica deficiency. I'm not even sure if anybody is actually experiencing silicon deficiencies. There is a product called Pro-tekt that is essentially potash solution with high silicates, that folks have been playing with for years.

http://florawww.eeb.uconn.edu/msds/Pro-Tekt_DataSheet.pdf

I've used it too for all the symptoms that I have later attributed to excess K, and as noted in previous posts many of us didn't get any positive culture effects from use.

Now the above data sheet claims scientifically proven to get Si into plants, and there appears to be some actual leaf concentration measurements, but Bjorn says that the potash silicates are not bio available.

So I don't know????


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 7, 2013)

There is a big difference between the potassium silicate in Pro-Tek and the silica contained in plants. Metal silicates, where the silicate ions are bound to the metal oxides (K2O, Na2O, CaO, etc.) are all characterized by very high pH, since the same metal oxides in water form their respective hydroxides. Potassium silicate in Pro-Tek has the lowest molar ratio of K2O:SiO2 I've ever seen (and this ratio is variable, easily increased by adding the metal hydroxide, but not easily decreased), and the reason is to minimize the alkalinity and maximize the SiO2 concentration. However, it is still very alkaline. I wonder how much thought really went into making it - I suspect that someone at Dyna-Grow read about silicon being beneficial, so they came up with the simplest inorganic product that delivered it (about 50 cents' worth of an active ingredient in a quart of distilled water).

Plant-derived silica is a different product altogether, with no alkalinity issues and a different chemical form. It's sold as a health supplement for people, to strengthen hair, skin and nails (and it works, at least for nails!). I don't know how much silica agar-agar contains, and perhaps not as much as the kelp extract that I also use. But there was a discussion on another forum that hormones should not be used continuously, and that they are more effective if the plants are given a break. Is that the case with silica supplementation too? Should we be looking at another source when we're not using kelp extract?


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> Should we be looking at another source when we're not using kelp extract?



How do you account for Dynagrows results of silica actually going into plants via Protekt? I don't think they really came up with anything new. Humanity has used soaked wood ashes for potassium (and at least incidentally) for silicates for hundreds of years.

There is silicates in the various organic and inorganic potting media we use. 

Most of us aren't worried about using low doses of kelp for years on end, so I don't feel I need to look for an alternative without kelp, I still have not heard of any symptoms of silica deficiency in orchids, that require special need for supplementation.

I'm not trying to convince you to not try special silicate supplements for your plants. So you are welcome to come up with whatever you'd like to try and tell us about it when it works?


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> Should we be looking at another source when we're not using kelp extract?



I guess another way to phrase the question is why do we always suspect that our plants are starving for something other than water and carbon, when the NPK, CaMgS Si B.......makes up less than 5% of the total plant.

Can you find any literature that indicates that soluble or bioavailable Si in the orchid environment is found at the concentrations that you are suggesting is necessary for their survival? I couldn't find any evidence for bio available potassium in the orchid environment at much more than 1ppm. That's why we looked at K as a toxicity issue rather than a starvation issue.


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 8, 2013)

I cannot find any analyses of silicon in the orchid environment; but that does not mean that it is not present. For orchids like paphs, that live as humus epifytes or lithofytes silicon should be readily available in the seepage water. For epifytes a not insignificant amount comes with the rain as dust. E.g a lot of the nutrition of the Amazonas is carried over as mineral dust with the trade winds from Sahara. Under any circumstance, the fact that plants contain silicon, means that they absorb it. And it is mainly absorbed as monosilicic acid. And it is absorbed in quantities that sometimes is higher than any other mineral(N, water and C exempt) in the plant. Normally at modest levels comparable to those of e.g. Phosphorous and potassium (K) 
In this ref.
http://horttech.ashspublications.org/content/20/3/603.full.pdf
the effect of silicon fertilization is investigated for phalaenopsis grown in sphagnum. They have used K-waterglass so obviously it works (even if I claim that it does not) at least to some extent. The addition levels they used were rather high so perhaps it is not that effective:evil: 
However, silicon levels increase with fertilisation, as does growth. 
Taken the normally low amount of silicon available as silicic acid, the roots of the plants must be extremely effective in absorbing it, so most people probably never see any deficiency symptoms. There is always some in the water, e.g. in well water, and the compost. And also it seems as if low levels of silicon does not give any severe deficiency symptoms, but silicon aids in the general uptake of many other nutrients like P, moderates uptake of other potentially poisonous elements (Mn, K etc) and so on. Additionally it is known to strengthen the epidermis of the cells rendering them less vunreable to attack by pests and deases. All in all I believe that the most prominent role of silicon is to strengthen the "immune system" of the plant resulting in healthier plants that tolerate stress better ; perhaps with a faster growth. But this is just my impression.:rollhappy:
Btw. there are thousands of publications out there dealing with silicon in plants. Not many on orchids though.


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 8, 2013)

I plan to try growing in chopped hemp stems, which is a very good source of bioavailable silica. I will report on my progress.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> I plan to try growing in chopped hemp stems, which is a very good source of bioavailable silica. I will report on my progress.



Horsetail is a plant very high in silicon, and may be available in wetter areas where you live.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Btw. there are thousands of publications out there dealing with silicon in plants. Not many on orchids though.



Thats what I noticed too.

Another math exercise would be to take the silicon in leaf litter in my article and work it backwards to possible terrestrial exposure.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Is Silica and Silicon the same element?


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 8, 2013)

quick net search listed silica as being a somewhat generic term for 'silicon dioxide'. some might be using the word interchangeably with silicon, but one is a compound and the other the element

that said, years back I tried pro-tekt and hadn't seen much change in my plant growth. at the time I had read somewhere that a study I think with orchids didn't show a whole lot of difference in plants that were given it to try and toughen them up, though greens grown hydroponically may have taken it up more but too much seemed to make them or a few other plants a bit brittle. now, if that isn't a pretty indefinite statement I don't know what is!  (meaning the lack of complete memory about it) so I tried pro-tekt but decided it wasn't the limiting factor in my growing (and since then have decided that it mostly was myself)


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

OK then we should decide which we are talking about Silica or Silicon. One an element and one a compound. 

Do plants contain Silica or Silicon in their tissue?

What are you applying in the form of a nutrient, silica or silicon?

Do plants need Silica or Silicon?


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 8, 2013)

The -a ending is used for oxides like silica for silicon dioxide , alumina for aluminiumoxide, titania for titaniumoxide urania for uranium oxide etc. The plants absorb a hydrated form of silica that we call monosilicic acid. That is silicondioxide that has reacted with two water molecules into a weak acid. Once inside the plant, the monosilicic acid polymerizes and become; guess what? Silica! So I guess it is fair to say that silica is what we talk about in plants. When we analyze the chemical components, it is however normally the element we analyze, but for practical purposes it is often reported as the oxide.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

How do plants absorb monosilicic acid? Through roots, foliage or?

Once inside the plant and the monosilicic acid polymerizes into Silica what does the plant do with it? Is it floating around as free silica or combined into another compound making up a part of tissue?


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 8, 2013)

It goes to the outer membranes (velamen and 'skin' on stems, pbulbs and leaves) and makes them stronger - presumably, tougher for insects to chew through. Also less likely for molds to find a vulnerable site to infect.


----------



## Rick (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> It goes to the outer membranes (velamen and 'skin' on stems, pbulbs and leaves) and makes them stronger - presumably, tougher for insects to chew through. Also less likely for molds to find a vulnerable site to infect.



In forage plants on the plains grazed by big herbivours high silica was an adaptive feature. But high silica is not universal for many plants. I attached an article early on that showed that a lot of flowering plants tended to be on the low side of Si. Also Ca is responsible for a lot of cell wall integrity issues that effect diisease and pest resistance.

Since high K inhibits the induction of Ca and Mg, I wonder if it does the same thing to silica.


----------



## Ray (Mar 8, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> quick net search listed silica as being a somewhat generic term for 'silicon dioxide'. some might be using the word interchangeably with silicon, but one is a compound and the other the element.



In the world of ceramics, the "-a" is often added to a metal to indicate its oxide - silica and alumina being the most common.

I do not think any plant or animal can take up silicon dioxide readily, and if we see SiO2 in the plants, it was likely formed there. I could be wrong.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> It goes to the outer membranes (velamen and 'skin' on stems, pbulbs and leaves) and makes them stronger - presumably, tougher for insects to chew through. Also less likely for molds to find a vulnerable site to infect.



How does it move in the plant to the outer membranes?
Is it deposited as layers of Silica?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

Ray said:


> I do not think any plant or animal can take up silicon dioxide readily, and if we see SiO2 in the plants, it was likely formed there. I could be wrong.



I happen to agree but......
In tropical South America the "local" timber cutters don't like to cut trees growing on sandy soils because they say the trees contain too much sand in the wood and it dulls their saws. They say the trees suck up the sand grains for the first 2 logs and then it won't go any higher. Now this might sound a little strange but the wood is high in silica as they say. Obvious the trees are not sucking up grains of sand but there are Silica deposits throughout the wood.
I really would like to understand why these trees have silica deposits.


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> How does it move in the plant to the outer membranes?
> Is it deposited as layers of Silica?



I don't know the exact transport mechanism, but in animals and humans it tends to strengthen hair, skin and especially fingernails. At least that's where I saw the biggest improvement when I took supplements. I stopped taking them because they improved ALL the hair, all over the body, especially in places I didn't care to have it improved.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 8, 2013)

ALToronto said:


> especially in places I didn't care to have it improved.


You must not be from California?


----------



## cnycharles (Mar 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I happen to agree but......
> In tropical South America the "local" timber cutters don't like to cut trees growing on sandy soils because they say the trees contain too much sand in the wood and it dulls their saws. They say the trees suck up the sand grains for the first 2 logs and then it won't go any higher. Now this might sound a little strange but the wood is high in silica as they say. Obvious the trees are not sucking up grains of sand but there are Silica deposits throughout the wood.
> I really would like to understand why these trees have silica deposits.



well, if it's a transport thing because there's so much of it in the soil and it just is taken up with the water unselectively, it could be that it's getting stored in 'waste' vacuoles and such. I don't know if pear fruit 'stones' are also silica; you know when you bite into a pear it has the gritty bits in it? I can't remember if this is something 'precipitated' into a vacuole or exactly what the mechanism and compound was for that


----------



## ALToronto (Mar 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> In forage plants on the plains grazed by big herbivours high silica was an adaptive feature. But high silica is not universal for many plants. I attached an article early on that showed that a lot of flowering plants tended to be on the low side of Si. Also Ca is responsible for a lot of cell wall integrity issues that effect diisease and pest resistance.
> 
> Since high K inhibits the induction of Ca and Mg, I wonder if it does the same thing to silica.



Ca and Si are very synergistic in inorganic chemistry - it's essentially how we get concrete (yes, there are aluminum compounds involved as well). In people, both elements are necessary for strong bones, and too many people overdose on Ca supplements to no avail because they don't get enough Si. I wonder how this works with plants.


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2013)

I was reading more about that earlier today.

As Lance stated many pages ago, stuff like rice have a huge demand for silicon, but it seems that the higher the plants are in the evolutionary tree, the less and less they need.

One might also argue (I'm not - just throwing it out for the discussion) that the silicon absorbed from the Si-rich soil by terrestrial plants is converted into insoluble forms within the plant, so unlike most of the other minerals, it will not be appreciably exuded by the plants, to be cascaded down on the epiphytes during rainstorms.


----------



## Stone (Mar 10, 2013)

Ray said:


> I was reading more about that earlier today.
> 
> As Lance stated many pages ago, stuff like rice have a huge demand for silicon, but it seems that the higher the plants are in the evolutionary tree, the less and less they need.
> 
> One might also argue (I'm not - just throwing it out for the discussion) that the silicon absorbed from the Si-rich soil by terrestrial plants is converted into insoluble forms within the plant, so unlike most of the other minerals, it will not be appreciably exuded by the plants, to be cascaded down on the epiphytes during rainstorms.



Yes an example is the ''needles'' on stinging nettle are (for all intents and purposes) glass! Which would not be readily soluble? But since glass is (I heard) not a solid but a super cooled liquid, then it would be a matter of time before it broke down again???


----------



## Rick (Mar 12, 2013)

http://cccryo.ntr.io/sources/files/medien/fwDiatom.pdf

Here's one of the proven culture medias for freshwater diatoms (unicellular algaes that have a silicon case).

I've used something similar in some diatom culture work I did in the late 90's

They generally use sodium silicate as the silicon source, and the diatoms seem to have no problem utilizing it.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 12, 2013)

Here is an interesting silicic acid paper. It states that aqueous monomeric silicic acid solution is in equilibrium with solid amorphous silica at a concentration of 0.002 molar. Since silicic acid has a formula weight of about 100 then 0.002 molar would be 200 ppm.
http://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/318/1/373.pdf


----------



## Stone (Mar 12, 2013)

Just an interesting side note. Apparently all the silica in the millions of tons of diatomite deposits ended up in the sea from the s**t of grazing animals..


----------



## Ray (Mar 12, 2013)

Stone said:


> But since glass is (I heard) not a solid but a super cooled liquid, then it would be a matter of time before it broke down again???


Glass is sort-of an "in-between" solid.

Due to the melting, the crystal structure is mostly disrupted, but the viscosity is so high that it really cannot full recombine into lattices upon cooling.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Mar 14, 2013)

Glad to see someone brought up the biogenic silica. Other genera use/produce silica glass beside diatoms, in plants and animals (sponges) so the bio-availability mechanisms are studied there (especially diatoms, as their glass is very interesting for applied science : how to make a cristal clear glass without heat…) so there's papers certainly in the literature.


----------

