# K-Lite Update?



## Ray (May 30, 2012)

To-date, there are 52 people using the stuff, with widely-varying conditions in FL (7), CT (6), NY (4), PA (4), MD (3), NC (3), CT (2), IN (2), KY (2), MN (2), TX (2), GA, IA, MI, NM, OK, OR, TN, and VA, plus Canada, France, Holland, Israel, Italy, Norway and Sweden.

Bill Argo warned that we should look for deficiencies:

Potassium deficiency - you will see an edge burn that starts on the lower leaves and works its way up the plant.
Phosphorus deficiency - The growth will stall, and the plants will either take on a dark green cast, or they will have a reddish color in the older leaves.
I started using it in late December; several others began not long after that.

As I have used it the longest, and as many of my plants are in S/H culture - meaning all they ever get is nutrient from the applied solutions, and nothing from anywhere else - I figure that I'll be the first to see deficiencies, and I have not. In fact, my plants seems to be growing and blooming better - but I will not claim that to be any scientific evidence at this point. The plants went for six weeks getting nothing but RO water before I began the trial, in an attempt to flush as much from the environment as I could.

My feeling is that it will be a long time before we see benefits, if the theories we have discussed hold true. Those of that have fed with "regular" fertilizers for a long time probably have plants that are "saturated" to start with, so it will take time to deplete the excess. If the levels in the fertilizer are too low, those deficiency symptoms will show up before any potential benefits.

Any observations from others?


----------



## Rick (May 30, 2012)

Sounds good Ray.

Although I didn't start with the official K lite until after you did, I started with my low K work around in early spring of 2011. So a bit over a year for my plants on a low K diet.

I think Rick H started his work around a few months later.

So far I'm really pleased with the results and seeing a good number of "beat up" oldies coming back.

Batches of new seedlings just chugging along instead of locking up and dieing.

So I'm feeling good.


----------



## jtrmd (May 30, 2012)

I haven't really noticed much yet.


----------



## keithrs (May 30, 2012)

I got lots of root growth but that my be do to kelp extract.


----------



## SlipperKing (May 30, 2012)

All and all, I have been pleased with my results. I do have one concern that stands out among all others and is bud blast I'm experiencing currently. It's not isolated to type of Paph, multies, singles, sequencel. Two lawrenceanums side by side both growing buds, one drys off dead the other still growing normal. Multies, flowers opening normal on the spike but then the tip dies and I loose half the flowers or spike is developing and the first bud is coming along nicely, the next day I find the bud on the ground. Sealed off at the ovary but the remaining flowers continue to grow out normal. 
In the old days before, Internet, I would always have bud blast in the summertime but isolated to the callosum, lawrenceanum type of plants never any of my multies.
Could this be due to low Potassium? I believe all other environmental conditions are with in the normal range for this time of the year
P.S. I should add I'm not seeing this issue with the Phrags


----------



## Jim Toomey (May 30, 2012)

Hmmm, not seeing any bud blast problems here in Florida. Humidity is kept around 70-85% or so with a Hydrofogger. Paphs- multi-florals, sequential and singles are all growing stronger than years before. Cats, bulbos, vandas, phrags, dens, are all doing very well. So far everything is looking very healthy. 
I wonder if the ground water quality may have changed due to a difference in rainfall from previous years.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (May 30, 2012)

Before I got K-lite, I'd been mixing my MSU with CaNO3, occasionally giving just CaNO3. So far, no signs of deficiency. Things seem to be growing well for the most part. Not sure if things are that much better, but definitely things are not worse.


----------



## Rick (May 30, 2012)

SlipperKing said:


> In the old days before, Internet, I would always have bud blast in the summertime but isolated to the callosum, lawrenceanum type of plants never any of my multies.
> Could this be due to low Potassium? I believe all other environmental conditions are with in the normal range for this time of the year
> P.S. I should add I'm not seeing this issue with the Phrags



I'm not experiencing higher than normal bud blast Rick, but I don't have the quantities of plants that you do. My robelinii dropped the first buds on its spikes, but went on to have 5 or so successful blooms on each spike. I also moved it to a cooler/shadier spot this year to see if I could get better flower longevity (not much in that respect). The stonei are awesome. The handful of Catts I have seem to be blooming better than ever, and on a flower mass basis would probably beat out the multies as far as K demand. How's light levels this year?


----------



## abax (May 31, 2012)

I'm extremely pleased with K-Lite. All my orchids and various other non-orchid plants are growing beautifully and
I've seen far more blooms that last longer. Even my Bearss dwarf lime tree is setting fruit like crazy. Anybody need limes? Definitely better in my gh than Jack's Pro.


----------



## paphreek (May 31, 2012)

No noticeable changes, yet, but it's still early.


----------



## Rick (May 31, 2012)

SlipperKing said:


> In the old days before, Internet, I would always have bud blast in the summertime but isolated to the callosum, lawrenceanum type of plants never any of my multies.
> Could this be due to low Potassium? I believe all other environmental conditions are with in the normal range for this time of the year



Rick How many of your plants got repotted after K-lite started? My roebelinii hadn't been repotted in several years, so I'm also wondering about shifts and releases in the potting mixes after shifting to reduced K (increased Ca/Mg)


----------



## SlipperFan (May 31, 2012)

I've only been using K-lite for about a month, too little time to see any changes.


----------



## emydura (Jun 2, 2012)

I have been doing my own version of low K, although not with the fertiliser Ray has provided. It involves using the slow release fertiliser MAGAMP, which I attach to my hose (N7, K5, P17.5, Mg7). Every time I water I use it. I also apply the fertiliser CMB (Ca-17%, Mg-4.0%, Boron-0.25%, N-12.1%, K-0.45%, Kelp and Fulvic Acid-19%). I apply the CMB mostly as a foliar fertiliser but I also apply it to the potting mix at a lower concentration every fourth watering. 

I have been doing this since December (summer here) and have noticed a big improvement in my plants. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause as I changed a few things at once. Lower K, high concentrations of Ca and Mg, the use of kelp and fulvic acid, the use of a foliar fertiliser, MAGAMP hose attachment etc.

This roth seedling never increased in size in 10 years. Since the fertiliser change it has put that big new leaf on. It won't flower next year but if it keeps growing that well, it will flower one day. All my roths in particular have shown great improvements in growth. I had 3 or 4 that were hardly doing anything previously.





Many of the new leaves have got significantly wider than the previous leaves, such as in this Gary Romagna seedling. 





One of my biggest problems has been getting my plants to put out multiple new growths. I had trouble getting them to clump. This is my roth that flowered late last year. Since using the fertiliser it has put out these 3 new leads. The lead on the right is coming from a new lead that is probably at least 18 months away from maturing. The growth that flowered previously has 3 new leads coming from the initial growth. 





As with the roth, this Harold Koopowitz seedling put out a couple of new leads not long after changing fertilisers. This unflowered seedling now has 3 leads coming from it. 





Overall my plants look fantastic, the best they have ever looked. The leaves are bigger, a deeper green and more rigid. I'm rapt with the change.


----------



## emydura (Jun 2, 2012)

I forgot to add that it was the worst growing season I have experienced. It was cold and rainy basically the whole season. There was little sun or warmth which is unusual for Canberra. Despite this, it was the best my plants have grown.


----------



## cattmad (Jun 2, 2012)

your plants sure look good david.

Brad


----------



## Ray (Jun 5, 2012)

I was in a "Curing Rot" discussion on the OrchidSource forum, and I realized that, unlike other springs, and this one has been really screwy - sunny mornings, so I water, then dark and rainy afternoons that keep water from drying, and really cool temperatures - I have not had to do any rot treatments this year!

All I can figure is that the low-K plus higher Ca+Mg must be good at building up the resistance of the plants.


----------



## keithrs (Jun 6, 2012)

I have on Paph philippinense.... First time I have had the problem of old growth leaves rotting.... But it's putting on about 7 new growths, last year I only got 2.


----------



## paphreek (Jun 6, 2012)

Ray said:


> I was in a "Curing Rot" discussion on the OrchidSource forum, and I realized that, unlike other springs, and this one has been really screwy - sunny mornings, so I water, then dark and rainy afternoons that keep water from drying, and really cool temperatures - I have not had to do any rot treatments this year!
> 
> All I can figure is that the low-K plus higher Ca+Mg must be good at building up the resistance of the plants.



We've had the same frustrating type of weather this spring. In general, I was quite happy with my fertilizer before K-Lite with the exception that I tended to lose an occasional plant to rot. That is why I'm experimenting with it. So far, so good.


----------



## Clark (Jun 7, 2012)

53.


----------



## Kavanaru (Jun 7, 2012)

Non-Slippers feedback.... After long discussions with some friends that grow Catasetinae, and reading the posts about K-lite and plant resistance, we decide to give it a try this growing season in order to check whether we could control better the eternal problem of mites when you grow Catasetinae. Two of us have single greenhouses, one has two greenhouses... So, we are using K-Liter in 3 of them since about two months (quite a long period for Catasetinae, as the new growths need to reach maximal growth within 3-5 months). We almost have no major problems with mites this year in the greenhouses where we applied K-Lite. One or two plants infected, but we can control it pretty quick and they do not spread as quick as in previous years or in the non-treated greenhouse (no difference in this one, compared to previous years)


----------



## Rick (Jun 7, 2012)

Kavanaru said:


> Non-Slippers feedback.... After long discussions with some friends that grow Catasetinae, and reading the posts about K-lite and plant resistance, we decide to give it a try this growing season in order to check whether we could control better the eternal problem of mites when you grow Catasetinae. Two of us have single greenhouses, one has two greenhouses... So, we are using K-Liter in 3 of them since about two months (quite a long period for Catasetinae, as the new growths need to reach maximal growth within 3-5 months). We almost have no major problems with mites this year in the greenhouses where we applied K-Lite. One or two plants infected, but we can control it pretty quick and they do not spread as quick as in previous years or in the non-treated greenhouse (no difference in this one, compared to previous years)



Are you seeing any difference in leaf size or "substance"? I have one Catesetum species (plant) that is just starting to leaf out for the year. It looks pretty good so far, but still to early to compare to previous years.

In general I'm having much easier time with mealy bugs in my collection too.


----------



## Ray (Jun 7, 2012)

The number of reported improvements are scaring me.

What are we missing and/or not yet seeing?


----------



## gonewild (Jun 7, 2012)

Ray said:


> The number of reported improvements are scaring me.
> 
> What are we missing and/or not yet seeing?



Possible health problems later? Like steroid use in young atheletes?

Or maybe overcrowded plant benches caused by increaded growth and no die offs? That could be a serious side effect! :drool:


----------



## Stone (Jun 7, 2012)

Kavanaru said:


> > We almost have no major problems with mites this year in the greenhouses where we applied K-Lite
> 
> 
> .
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jun 7, 2012)

Stone said:


> Kavanaru said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm trying to get some "before and after" photos together for the article I'm writing. So try this one. My phrag wallisii (now warcsewikzianum) Last year it bloomed on a stunted growth only about 8" tall. The most mature unbloomed growth, that was just a tyke when I started my reduced K program, is now over a foot tall. Leaf length has increased by 45% compared to the previous flowered growth. I'd also loose 1-2 new growths out of 3 to erwinia, but so far erwinia has stopped.






Also getting a great come-back on a lindenii that I had almost lost to erwinia.


----------



## Stone (Jun 7, 2012)

Rick said:


> I'm trying to get some "before and after" photos together for the article I'm writing. So try this one. My phrag wallisii (now warcsewikzianum) Last year it bloomed on a stunted growth only about 8" tall. The most mature unbloomed growth, that was just a tyke when I started my reduced K program, is now over a foot tall. Leaf length has increased by 45% compared to the previous flowered growth. I'd also loose 1-2 new growths out of 3 to erwinia, but so far erwinia has stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The size of growths are governed (assuming adequate supply of all other nutrients) by N. (and the genetics of the plant and environment) So your plant may have just been responding to improved physical conditions in the basket. Once roots have proliferated you generally get an explosion in the next growth. I've seen this many times in my g/house after repoting into fresh mix, letting a plant with rotted roots to dry out which is then followed by vigorous growth, feeding something that had missed out for some reason. etc. All this with plants which have languished and been miserable year after year. Once their roots got going, subsequent growth was remarkable.
Something with your plant allowed it to consume more N. Usually this is more roots. Its possible reducing the K allowed for better root growth by improved calcium intake? But I've seen similr resposes without the K reduction. 
So.....stuffed if I know?

Mike


----------



## Rick (Jun 7, 2012)

Stone said:


> All this with plants which have languished and been miserable year after year. Once their roots got going, subsequent growth was remarkable.
> Something with your plant allowed it to consume more N. Usually this is more roots. Its possible reducing the K allowed for better root growth by improved calcium intake? But I've seen similr resposes without the K reduction.
> So.....stuffed if I know?
> 
> Mike



All possibly true. So why was this plant going down the tubes for the 3 years prior under the old high K regime with standard annual repotting? Granted this is just one anecdotal result out of the dozens of positive effects I'm seeing in my collection since the change. To me what makes the above result even more remarkable are the significant losses I've suffered with long petaled phrag species over the last 10 years (some of which were also in baskets, but all high K). Between these wallisii, lindenii, and exstamiodium turn-around cases, I can write off about 10 other cases where high K ultimately resulted in dead caudatum type phrags, regardless of potting mix or pot type. 

I'm pretty happy so far.


----------



## abax (Jun 8, 2012)

Even though I'm not a scientific grower, but a very observant grower, I see a good bit of improvement in all
the plants in my gh in a fairly short time with K-Lite. I was using Jack's Pro with Ca/Mag and high potassium and the lower potassium is improving root growth and top growth simultaneously. The weather here has been unusually cool, damp and overcast and I still see improvement. I've followed the same routine I've used for over 15 years, so attention isn't any different.


----------



## chrismende (Jun 8, 2012)

So, are any of you doing some comparison tracking of same plants in different fertilizing regimes?


----------



## Rick (Jun 8, 2012)

chrismende said:


> So, are any of you doing some comparison tracking of same plants in different fertilizing regimes?



I have 2 groups of 5 (or 6) lowii seedlings just taken out of the same compot in December or January of this year. They are all potted identically (a CHC based mix in 2 inch black plastic pots) and sit right next to each other. They are all growing, and the high K may actually be slightly ahead based on leaves, but although I can't see the roots, when I pull on the low K plants they are more firmly seated in the pots, while the high K are comparatively shallow and loose in the pots.

At 5 or 6 months they are all about what I would get in the past with high K. If they hold true to past results I expect the high K will stop growing after about a year and start declining.

I pulled a few of the bigger ones out of this same compot about a year ago. 2 in baskets and 1 in a similar plastic pot and all low K. These are already many times bigger than the above test plants. Almost 6 inches tall.

For what its worth, this is the second batch of seedlings I produced from a selfing of a now deceased lowii I owned from about 2002 to 2009. The first batch I received (Nov, 2005) are all dead, and never grew more than a few inches. This second batch has been out of flask for about 1.5 years now (received Nov, 2010), with almost no losses and the largest are beating the heck out of what I experienced with the first batch. Same parent, same flasking service, most of the conditions/handling the same except for feeding regime.


----------



## Rick (Jun 8, 2012)

Rick said:


> For what its worth, this is the second batch of seedlings I produced from a selfing of a now deceased lowii I owned from about 2002 to 2009. The first batch I received (Nov, 2005) are all dead, and never grew more than a few inches. This second batch has been out of flask for about 1.5 years now (received Nov, 2010), with almost no losses and the largest are beating the heck out of what I experienced with the first batch. Same parent, same flasking service, most of the conditions/handling the same except for feeding regime.



Obviously the above is not a demonstration of a true side by side trial since I can't account for all the variables in my culture program from 6 years ago.

Interestingly I was contacted in 2007 or 2008 by someone else ( I think Olympic orchids) who had also received some flasks from that same 2005 group who said they were doing great for them. So whatever I was doing from 2005 to 2008 wasn't good for that batch of lowii seedlings.


----------



## Kavanaru (Jun 8, 2012)

Stone said:


> Kavanaru said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 8, 2012)

Rick said:


> All possibly true. So why was this plant going down the tubes for the 3 years prior under the old high K regime with standard annual repotting? Granted this is just one anecdotal result out of the dozens of positive effects I'm seeing in my collection since the change. To me what makes the above result even more remarkable are the significant losses I've suffered with long petaled phrag species over the last 10 years (some of which were also in baskets, but all high K). Between these wallisii, lindenii, and exstamiodium turn-around cases, I can write off about 10 other cases where high K ultimately resulted in dead caudatum type phrags, regardless of potting mix or pot type.
> 
> I'm pretty happy so far.



I can't explain why the turn around but can we ignore the fact that most of these were probably grown with standard fertilizing practice?http://www.google.com.au/search?q=p...AXI0oj3Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CGYQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=525 (How's the plant at the bottom of page3!)
And you could say the same with everything else. I'm still convinced that its evironment (light, heat, humidity,air) 80%
water 15%
fertilizer 5% if that. probably more like 1
Standard N to K ratio in the nursery industry here is about 1:0.8 ( for ALL containerized stock-woody and non woody ) I'm sure its the same there as well. Some have found that during cold dark days of a southern winter, ratios had to increase to 1:2 to and in extreme cases to 1:3! to counter young plants stretching due to lack of light. But the most important thing was to reduce N in these conditions. 
I have found my stuff is doing well with N to K ratio of about 1:0.4 with 0.5%Mg and some form of Ca. added. (my water is fairly soft) and I try to make allowences for native K in bark t/fern and chc especially.


----------



## Ray (Jun 8, 2012)

I totally agree that long-term assessment is necessary, so am skeptical of even my interpretation of my own observations at this point.


----------



## Rick (Jun 8, 2012)

Ray said:


> I totally agree that long-term assessment is necessary, so am skeptical of even my interpretation of my own observations at this point.



HA Ha... You started this thread Rayoke:


However, seems like we have debunked the notion that all our plants would starve and go down in flames.

And one of my more important issues I'm hoping to see alleviated is the boom and bust syndrome of orchid growth (which really would take about 3-5 years to realize a difference).


----------



## emydura (Jun 10, 2012)

My experience is that pests and rot seem to attack weak plants. Strong healthy plants rarely seem to suffer these issues. I was having a terrible problem with scale late last year but that now seems to be behind me.

I disagree with you Mike that fertiliser is insignificant. All those factors you mention are important but so is the orchids food. Maybe in terms of the plants survival it is not crtical, but if you want to grow your plants optimally then you need to get it right. I have been growing Paphs for over 10 years now and until recently I was a terrible grower. I would get divisions from John Robertson and P&R Orchids and watch as my follow-up growths were runts compared to what I received. I tried all different things, changing potting mixes etc and nothing worked until I got the food right. 

Below is another example of the significant improvement in one of my plants (insigne x superbiens) that I posted the other day. The top leaf was grown after the fertiliser change. This growth probably has another years growth in it as well. The bottom parallel leaf is from the flowering growth and was mature before the fertiliser change. Maybe you are right Mick and that leaves should get bigger as the plant matures. But I have never seen this sort of improvement before.


----------



## emydura (Jun 10, 2012)

So Rick, we keep talking about low K. But from memory I think you said that the problem is that plants cannot access Ca and Mg because of the high K levels in the mix? So the direct problem is a lack of Ca and Mg due to the indirect high levels of K? 

That is the big change I have made in my fertiliser regime. Certainly I have decreased my K, but I have greatly increased my Mg and Ca at the same time. The fact that I apply it largely as a foliar fertiliser may mean the issue of K locking up Ca and Mg may be less of a problem for me?


----------



## Stone (Jun 10, 2012)

emydura said:


> > My experience is that pests and rot seem to attack weak plants. Strong healthy plants rarely seem to suffer these issues. I was having a terrible problem with scale late last year but that now seems to be behind me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## emydura (Jun 11, 2012)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > No definately not insignificant
> ...


----------



## eggshells (Jun 11, 2012)

Speaking if MSU, I tried measuring the TDS of MSU. 1/8 tsp per gallon yields around 300 ppm. Im not sure if my TDS meter is not calibrated or this reading is correct, after adding 1/8 of magsulfate and 1/8 calnitrate its around 400ppm. This is on RO water.


----------



## Rick (Jun 11, 2012)

emydura said:


> So Rick, we keep talking about low K. But from memory I think you said that the problem is that plants cannot access Ca and Mg because of the high K levels in the mix? So the direct problem is a lack of Ca and Mg due to the indirect high levels of K?
> 
> That is the big change I have made in my fertiliser regime. Certainly I have decreased my K, but I have greatly increased my Mg and Ca at the same time. The fact that I apply it largely as a foliar fertiliser may mean the issue of K locking up Ca and Mg may be less of a problem for me?



To an extent, yes K-lite is shorthand for reduced K and increased Ca/Mg. The K lite formula does both. The numbers we went for reflect more natural K, Ca, Mg levels in tropical forrest leaf litters. 

The "locking up" issue happens in both plant tissues and organic substrates. Which is why some growers (including myself for short periods of time) can get some relief from high K by adding things like lime, bonemeal, and oyster shell to potting mixes.

However, the bromiliad literature showed that epiphytic plants (which could include cliff dwelling paphs) were extremely efficient at obtaining K from sparse environments, even when Ca/Mg were in excess. They actually expend energy to do this since K is so rare in their environments.

The effects are probably more pronounced for the people using RO or rain water. For those using tap, well, and surface waters ( that have significant Ca even in soft water) there is some mediating effects against high K.

But overall slow growing perenials just dont need the K. It's primarily for starch production and bromiliads/orchids and the like just don't make bug startchy sugary friuts.


----------



## Rick (Jun 11, 2012)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > Not always. In fact I have huge and very healthy Laelia anceps in the glasshouse at the moment in full flower which I noticed last week was being attacked by brown scale all over the spikes (bad housekeeping?) and other perfectly healthy orchids as well with new leaves or spikes also being attacked by white scale. Some scale even on the flowers so they can establish themselves in a matter of days!
> ...


----------



## Ray (Jun 11, 2012)

A PM sent to me on another board:

I'm not a member of slippertalk, although I lurk there, (obvious since I knew about the K-lite)

I took some pictures yesterday of new growths on a couple of my Hoyas which are pretty astonishing.

These are well established plants, not newly repotted, growing in the same spots. I've attached links for two pics showing the difference from the average old leaves, and the average new leaves since I started using K-lite.

Hoya fungii

Hoya imperialis


I know it's Hoyas, not orchids, but it to me shows some interesting results. But Hoyas are epiphytes as well. I choose these as they show what I'm seeing the best. But I'm seeing these results pretty much across the board in my Hoyas, especially the ones that are established plants.


----------



## Rick (Jun 11, 2012)

Ray said:


> A PM sent to me on another board:
> 
> I'm not a member of slippertalk, although I lurk there, (obvious since I knew about the K-lite)
> 
> ...



Ray

From my computer it says the pictures were moved or deleted. 
I don't grow any Hoyas, but I mentioned that I'm now able to grow bromiliads where I used to kill them all over time.


----------



## Ray (Jun 11, 2012)

Rick said:


> Ray
> 
> From my computer it says the pictures were moved or deleted.
> I don't grow any Hoyas, but I mentioned that I'm now able to grow bromiliads where I used to kill them all over time.



Try now. The first time, I just copied the message in its entirety. I just edited by inserting the full image URLs.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 11, 2012)

Ray said:


> Try now. The first time, I just copied the message in its entirety. I just edited by inserting the full image URLs.


Works for me now.


----------



## Stone (Jun 14, 2012)

emydura said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > 1 to 5% is hardly significant. oke:
> ...


----------



## emydura (Jun 14, 2012)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > And what are you using now David?
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2012)

emydura said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > 1 to 5% is hardly significant. oke:
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 14, 2012)

emydura said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I go into detail here -
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 14, 2012)

Rick said:


> Actually since the nutrients in your water (15%) and fertilizer (up to5%) are tightly inter meshed, then you might consider feeding/nutrition as 20% of the equation.
> 
> From reading all the complaints over the years, the majority were coming from strict RO and rain water users (which included myself).
> 
> ...



Ok I would go along with all that. Orchids only get rain water in the wild so then obviously the feed we add to the rain water we use may not have all the elements and in the right combination if we need to add tap water back in.
So...why doesn't some one go to the jungle and collect the water dripping off some orchid roots and analyse that and base a fertilizer on that. It might include all kinds of compounds that we never considered? And we can't forget the various micro flora which work in association with the orchid.....Then again we seem to be doing ok as is.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 14, 2012)

Stone said:


> So...why doesn't some one go to the jungle and collect the water dripping off some orchid roots and analyse that and base a fertilizer on that.



I have done that in Peru. Water seeping from the slopes covered with orchids and other plants tests nearly 0 ppm with a meter. Sometimes as high as 20 ppm. Clearly the nutrients that the plants use are not flowing in the water. The nutrients are stuck to the "media" by ionic bond. So if you use this as a guide to decide what liquid fertilizer rate to use you would be way off base.

There is a huge difference between our media we have to use in pots and what wild plants grow in. In Nature the media is "alive" in every sense. In a plant collection the media is "dead" as far as simulating natural orchid root media.

Forget trying to replicate Nature, she is far beyond our capabilities! The best we can do is to define a combination of environmental factors that produce a plant that pleases our human perception. The idea of perfection for most orchid growers is not what you find in Nature for the most part. No one wants a plant with chewed up leaves and that is what you usually find with wild plants. If the K-Lite formula actually produces a plant that resists insect attack then the K-Lite formula probably does not mimic Nature. I suggest this because why would Nature want to have plants in the environment that are non nutritious for insects? Insects need to feed on plants or they would not prosper and mealybugs are just as important in nature as is an orchid plant. Maybe not just as important to humans but then who says humans get to decide that answer?

So K-Lite should not be looked at as a replication of the nutrients that wild orchids have but rather a formula to shift from Nature's standard quality plant to one that is more attractive to to the human perception of beauty.

OK, I just thought that so I wrote it. :crazy:


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2012)

Stone said:


> So...why doesn't some one go to the jungle and collect the water dripping off some orchid roots and analyse that and base a fertilizer on that.



Well I dug up several papers on nutrient flux in rain forests when I first brought this up a year ago. No they are not specific to the drippings off of epiphytic orchid roots, but were more comprehensive. Since orchids are part of these ecosystems I thought it was reasonable to think that these numbers were pertinent.

These were the papers referring to leaf litter, leaf tissue, runoff constituents analysis of major ions/nutrients in rainforests and a big part of the basis of why we came up with K lite.

The other study we referred to a lot was the the bromiliad physiology paper which also pointed to low K.

There doesn't seem to be much point in chasing after exotic micro nutrients and phytochemicals until the fundamentals are corrected.


----------



## Stone (Jun 14, 2012)

> The best we can do is to define a combination of environmental factors that produce a plant that pleases our human perception


. 

Exactly, Hence my example of the insigne above. 



> So K-Lite should not be looked at as a replication of the nutrients that wild orchids have but rather a formula to shift from Nature's standard quality plant to one that is more attractive to to the human perception of beauty.



Totally agree. No way it could be. But again refering to the insigne, it shows that plants are quite adaptable and judging from its quality, I would argue that ''the formula'' has already been found. No way that plant could be improved upon.


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2012)

gonewild said:


> No one wants a plant with chewed up leaves and that is what you usually find with wild plants. If the K-Lite formula actually produces a plant that resists insect attack then the K-Lite formula probably does not mimic Nature. I suggest this because why would Nature want to have plants in the environment that are non nutritious for insects?



Well I don't think that plants with spines, toxins, foul taste, bark,..... are in agreement with Nature with their role to supply nutrition for every bug out there. It's pretty obvious that a lot of what plants produce chemically, or manifest externally is to reduce/prevent/or escape predation (usually by insects). The flip side is the fragrances and sugars put into flowers, fruits, and seeds to promote reproduction by (usually insect) helpers. I get out in the woods myself and don't see the amount of infestation that happens in the GH, or in my outdoor garden for that matter. Yes there's a million and 1 reasons why garden monoculture crops are more susceptible to pests and diseases and need chemical intervention to control pests besides excess fertilizer. But I see no reason why we can't learn from nature to get some cues on taking care of plant/animal organisms that aren't that far removed from their wild counterparts.

You actually brought up to issues. 1) the total amount of nutrients in flux in tropical rainforests is a fraction of what we pour onto are plants each year.
2) Orchids don't produce high sugar/starch seeds and fruits. And the majority don't even produce significant quantities of nectar. This is where the bulk of K goes in plants, which is why corn, tomatoes, and sweet potatoes, bannanas... actually need some supplemental K. When you load an orchid up on K, it produces more than normal amounts of intracellular sugars and starches (gets fat) which makes it tastier for sucking bugs like mealies and scale.

Orchids are adapted to highly competitive impoverished environments. They are low energy and low resource competitors. So questions could be asked. Why did orchids develop the relationship with mychorizal fungus to develop to feed their embryos instead of making big starch/sugar filled seeds that feed themselves? Why did orchids come up with all kinds of deceptive pollination gimmicks rather than just compete with the newer model of cranking out a ton of sugar/nectar to entice the bees to come and move your pollen around?

I would guess if you don't have the resources to make sugar you come up with something else.


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2012)

Stone said:


> Then again we seem to be doing ok as is.



Apparently not. You post as many complaints and questions about perceived shortcomings in your plants as the rest of us. Apparently NOT ok.

What defines "OK"? 90% loss of seedlings? Plants that "bloom themselves to death" after 3 years? Plants that take 10 years to get to blooming size? Plants that loose their roots if you don't repot twice a year? Plants that need constant doses of pesticides to keep pest under control? Plants that can't get watered on them after 10AM so they don't get rot? The laundry list of "OK" that folks (certainly including myself) complain about or more realistically have adapted too is pretty astounding.

It seems like the adaptation is coming from both directions. The plants adapt (or die) with the conditions we offer, but what we offer is not much more than an adaption of the resources (time/effort/knowledge/money/fertilizer availability) that we bring to the table to get the plants to accept (at least at a bare minimum).

Mike. You keep bringing up that you have to get the basics (light temp humidity) down first. I agree, but that is also us growers adapting to the plants needs as much as the plants adapting to the growers offered parameters.

However, those three items are a pretty small repertoire of variables to worry about. So what do you do after exhausting the "Intermediate temps, Medium Light, High humidity" bag of tricks on the 6th compot of a Paph species that you've just wasted?


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2012)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so assuming your plants are recieving equal quanaties of both ferts??, then your N to K ratio would be (very aprox) around 1:0.3. I think that's a pretty good ratio and in fact very nearly the same as I'm using. On the other hand The K-lite formula refered to in this thread etc. has a ratio more like 1:00.1 or less. (if my head is screwed on properly this morning). A big difference!
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jun 15, 2012)

Rick said:


> Well I don't think that plants with spines, toxins, foul taste, bark,..... are in agreement with Nature with their role to supply nutrition for every bug out there.



Sure they are, they just favor certain bugs.



> It's pretty obvious that a lot of what plants produce chemically, or manifest externally is to reduce/prevent/or escape predation (usually by insects).



We accept that as the obvious reason plants have certain defenses but is the design and purpose of the defenses to protect the plant from all insects for the sake of plant survival alone or also to protect a food source for select insect species? 



> The flip side is the fragrances and sugars put into flowers, fruits, and seeds to promote reproduction by (usually insect) helpers. I get out in the woods myself and don't see the amount of infestation that happens in the GH, or in my outdoor garden for that matter. Yes there's a million and 1 reasons why garden monoculture crops are more susceptible to pests and diseases and need chemical intervention to control pests besides excess fertilizer. But I see no reason why we can't learn from nature to get some cues on taking care of plant/animal organisms that aren't that far removed from their wild counterparts.



I agree with you completely on all points of the K-Lite effect. I always say look closely at the natural conditions plants grow in to learn what they need. But don't try to simply mimic Nature and accept that as the best growing technique. Since we don't and can't replicate nature perfectly in all the other environmental elements we need to alter the nutrient supply from what Nature provides. That is exactly what you have done with K-Lite and the result is an improvement on Nature's plant "quality", At least as far as what we like to look at. 



> You actually brought up to issues. 1) the total amount of nutrients in flux in tropical rainforests is a fraction of what we pour onto are plants each year.



Exactly. But Tropical rainforests have a billion other factors that enable plants to grow without high mineral content in the water. We can not replicate most of those other factors so we compensate by supplying more than the daily requirement. It works to produce plants that grow well. Fine tune it and they grow better.


> 2) Orchids don't produce high sugar/starch seeds and fruits. And the majority don't even produce significant quantities of nectar. This is where the bulk of K goes in plants, which is why corn, tomatoes, and sweet potatoes, bannanas... actually need some supplemental K. When you load an orchid up on K, it produces more than normal amounts of intracellular sugars and starches (gets fat) which makes it tastier for sucking bugs like mealies and scale.



Very well stated.



> Orchids are adapted to highly competitive impoverished environments. They are low energy and low resource competitors. So questions could be asked. Why did orchids develop the relationship with mychorizal fungus to develop to feed their embryos instead of making big starch/sugar filled seeds that feed themselves?



Because there are some small creatures out there that need to feed on the tiny low sugar/starch seeds??? 



> Why did orchids come up with all kinds of deceptive pollination gimmicks rather than just compete with the newer model of cranking out a ton of sugar/nectar to entice the bees to come and move your pollen around?



:rollhappy: Because orchids are superficial vain beauty queens that care more about what they look like than how they taste?



> I would guess if you don't have the resources to make sugar you come up with something else.



Or maybe you have the resources but are just to lazy to use them? Or Mother Nature gave that job to some other species? Just because the plants don't use the resource does not mean it is not available.
Your K-Lite formula works but I don't think the good effect you are seeing will be restricted to plants that naturally come from a low K environment. I think you are correct and you are showing that K can become "toxic" in plants, probably most plants.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 15, 2012)

Stone said:


> .
> 
> Exactly, Hence my example of the insigne above.
> 
> .



But isolated examples like the insigne should not be interpreted to show that little or no fertilizer is what grows the best plants. What it shows is that on occasion environments within the root zone become perfect and plants grow fantastic. But this is a rare occurrence. Is every plant the insigne owner has is so prolific?


----------



## Rick (Jun 15, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Or maybe you have the resources but are just to lazy to use them? Or Mother Nature gave that job to some other species? Just because the plants don't use the resource does not mean it is not available.
> Your K-Lite formula works but I don't think the good effect you are seeing will be restricted to plants that naturally come from a low K environment. I think you are correct and you are showing that K can become "toxic" in plants, probably most plants.



Ahh.. But didn't we just say that people have gone out in the jungles (like yourself) with various probes and measuring methods and devices, and determined that the resources aren't available?

It doesn't look like anyone in the jungle gets a free ride (except maybe the beauty queens!!).

All fun debate. Chasing the Klite concept gave me an idea about the "evolution" of domestic corn (a plant that really seems to need a ton of K).

It seems that 'edible' corn showed up about the same time as humanity. Indian lore (from the corn cultures) all have similar stories about corn being a gift from the gods to the starving people, but long after the acknowledgment that people arrived to a land already populated by the other plant and animal beings.

The closest relatives of corn (Teostimine, if I spelled that correctly, but another of the genus Zia) grows fine at jungle margins in the regions were corn is thought to originate, but is really inedible for humans.

But one of the first gifts from the Gods was fire, and with burning of wood you get ashes, and with the rain going through the ashes you get POTASH (i.e. concentrated potassium solution).

So with groups of humans leaving burned out piles of ashes from their staying warm and meat cooking fires, what if that was next to a clump of that "dammed worthless Teostomine weed"......+ Darwinian evolution+mutation = CORN!!! GIFT FROM THE FIRE GODS!

I thought that was a fun story to make up.


----------



## Rick (Jun 15, 2012)

More fun.

Evolution = Gods playing stick ball
Mutations = GOALS!

Darwin = particularly astute game commentator (for a white guyoke


----------



## Ray (Jun 15, 2012)

gonewild said:


> We accept that as the obvious reason plants have certain defenses but is the design and purpose of the defenses to protect the plant from all insects for the sake of plant survival alone or also to protect a food source for select insect species?


Is that a "chicken or egg" question, or one that questions the entire reason for the existence of all living things?



> Just because the plants don't use the resource does not mean it is not available.


True to some degree, but plants tend to be quite opportunistic, so generally use whatever IS available - some nutrient uptake is active, others passive, so they may get it whether they need to or not.

Those plants that have evolved to use little or no "X" are very unlikely to grow in an area where "X" is plentiful, and if we relocate a plant into an "X-plentiful" environment, it will likely suffer - maybe not a lot, but its "evolutionary optimization" no longer applies.

That is what we do when we "domesticate" them.


----------



## emydura (Jun 15, 2012)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so assuming your plants are recieving equal quanaties of both ferts??, then your N to K ratio would be (very aprox) around 1:0.3. I think that's a pretty good ratio and in fact very nearly the same as I'm using. On the other hand The K-lite formula refered to in this thread etc. has a ratio more like 1:00.1 or less. (if my head is screwed on properly this morning). A big difference!
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 15, 2012)

emydura said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > And as I said before a lot of the Ca and Mg in my plants goes directly in through the leaves, which I assume is independent of K levels. The end game is an increased uptake of Ca and Mg by your plants rather than lower K levels itself. Lower K just helps facilitate the absorption of Ca and Mg.
> ...


----------



## emydura (Jun 16, 2012)

Rick said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > David
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 16, 2012)

Rick said:


> > Apparently not. You post as many complaints and questions about perceived shortcomings in your plants as the rest of us. Apparently NOT ok.
> 
> 
> Most of the questions I'm asking are related to general culture of paphs which I've only been seriously collecting for a couple of years. species specific stuff, others experiences etc. Although as the months go by I've noticed that most of these issues are pretty much comparable to general orchid culture which I've been doing for years. But there's always something to complain about
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 16, 2012)

gonewild said:


> > We accept that as the obvious reason plants have certain defenses but is the design and purpose of the defenses to protect the plant from all insects for the sake of plant survival alone or also to protect a food source for select insect species?
> 
> 
> Surley your not seriousoke: What else are you growing in Peru??
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 16, 2012)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > You can't say that you lost a compot from too high K? my feeling is it was probably something more fudimental. We all kill plants when we first start but we quickly learn from mistakes.( the best lessons)
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 17, 2012)

Here is the insigne I mentioned. As you can see it doen't seem to mind a bit of extra K! And, seeing its never really been repotted, there is probably quite a build up of K (along with Ca and Mg) ions in the old mix which has no doubt broken down to pure humus over the years along with the fact that he used unamended chc under it the last time he moved it on. Not something I would do but there you are...
More pics to the right:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvinoz/7379714008/


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 17, 2012)

Amazing plant!


----------



## Rick (Jun 17, 2012)

Stone said:


> Here is the insigne I mentioned. As you can see it doen't seem to mind a bit of extra K! And, seeing its never really been repotted, there is probably quite a build up of K (along with Ca and Mg) ions in the old mix which has no doubt broken down to pure humus over the years along with the fact that he used unamended chc under it the last time he moved it on. Not something I would do but there you are...
> More pics to the right:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvinoz/7379714008/



That's an awesome plant.

But as you mentioned he hardly feeds in the first place and the root density in that pot has got to be amazing. At this point that huge mass of plant competing for a handful of any fertilizer would probably have quite low concentrations of K in the tissues, roots, and whats left of the potting mix.

I have several plants that are essentially busting out of pots and also rarely repotted over the ten years I've owned them. The pearcei I posted last week is one of them. Interestingly, until going to K lite I've never been able to get a one or two growth division of this plant to survive for any significant length of time when potted up by itself. Now the divisions are doing great after a full year:wink:

Obviously Mike you won't be convinced until after 40 years of full double blind controlled studies, with accompanying tissues sample analysis. But I guess after 6 months (1+ years for a few of us) with hundreds of plants from multiple growers using K lite, that at least we know that orchids do fine without feeding a ton of K. Most of us have reduced our overall K footprint by 90% with no loss of growth or blooming potential. So that's good for the environment.:wink:


----------



## Stone (Jun 17, 2012)

Rick said:


> > Obviously Mike you won't be convinced until after 40 years of full double blind controlled studies, with accompanying tissues sample analysis.
> 
> 
> :rollhappy:
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jun 17, 2012)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Surley your not seriousoke: What else are you growing in Peru??
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jun 17, 2012)

Stone said:


> But, from what I've seen here (so far) I'm not so conviced K needs to be reduced as much as the K-lite formula.



Are you suggesting that the plants would grow better with more K than the K-Lite?


----------



## gonewild (Jun 17, 2012)

Stone said:


> Here is the insigne I mentioned. As you can see it doen't seem to mind a bit of extra K! And, seeing its never really been repotted, there is probably quite a build up of K (along with Ca and Mg) ions in the old mix which has no doubt broken down to pure humus over the years along with the fact that he used unamended chc under it the last time he moved it on. Not something I would do but there you are...
> More pics to the right:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvinoz/7379714008/



A beautiful plant.....and just imagine out much better it would be if he used K-Lite!


----------



## Rick (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting that the plants would grow better with more K than the K-Lite?
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 17, 2012)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > By the way have you considered the antagonistic relationship of NH4 to K?
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > :rollhappy: I grow lot's of things! I'm serious enough to consider anything is possible and so I make comments to give people a reason to "think" rather than assume.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 17, 2012)

gonewild said:


> A beautiful plant.....and just imagine out much better it would be if he used K-Lite!



:rollhappy:Ha I'm trying but having trouble!


----------



## Stone (Jun 17, 2012)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > No because most of us are working in low alkalinity solutions with very little NH4.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jun 18, 2012)

Rick said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Quote Alert! that's Mikes quote not mine Lance.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Jun 18, 2012)

Stone said:


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


----------



## gonewild (Jun 18, 2012)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking more 'in habitat' but that raises the nitrate v ammonium thing again.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 18, 2012)

Well try this table recreated from a paper on leaf litter data from a West Sumatran rain forrest. On average in this forest Ca is about 6 X higher than K and rarely comes close to 50/50 seasonally. In this forest K is usually a bit higher than Mg.

In this forest silicon significantly trumps K and Mg. The leaf litter data for karst rainforest in Malyasia and serpentine forests in South America is similar but not as comprehensive in time frame and nutrients measurerd.


----------



## Stone (Jun 18, 2012)

Rick said:


> Well try this table recreated from a paper on leaf litter data from a West Sumatran rain forrest. On average in this forest Ca is about 6 X higher than K and rarely comes close to 50/50 seasonally. In this forest K is usually a bit higher than Mg.
> 
> In this forest silicon significantly trumps K and Mg. The leaf litter data for karst rainforest in Malyasia and serpentine forests in South America is similar but not as comprehensive in time frame and nutrients measurerd.



Sorry Rick, You're right. I must have been thinking Mg to K. (table 2)
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/tro...sta rica pdfs/Wood et al. 2006-Ecosystems.pdf
But look at the figures for K-m (mature leaf) and Ca-m (mature leaf)
for a number of orchids here ( Table 1 (Mg/g) )
http://si-pddr.si.edu/jspui/bitstream/10088/3778/1/Zotz_J._Trop_Ecol.pdf


----------



## Rick (Jun 19, 2012)

The leaf senescence paper is VERY interesting.

Overall if you look at all 20 species (of which 14 are orchids)the overall ratio of K to Ca is only slightly in favor of Ca (50/50 for intent of purpose) in mature leaves. Generally the amount of Mg+Ca (total divalent cation) would certainly push relative K% down more (which is something I included in original reduced K discussions).

Now if you look at total averages in senescent leaves, K is about 1/2 the Ca and the plants in general are reabsorbing about 1/2 of the leaf K as they abort old leaves. While all the Ca and Mg is lost in the old leaf. Since the plant is reabsorbing the K it doesn't need to bring as much new K in from outside the plant. But it will need total replacement of the Ca and Mg.

Now to focus on just the 14 orchid species. 5 of the 14 are close to 50/50 (as mature live leaves) K/Ca once again add the Mg and total divalent cation is ahead of K in mature leaves. Pretty much the same story as the above paragraph.

Now 4 of the species have decided K obviously above Ca or sum Ca+Mg in live leaves. But 3 of the 4 are well known leaf shedders. Especially the Catesetum. This fits a bit better into the "corn" or annual system of grow fast bloom and die strategy. Make big storage bulbs in just a few months and shed the leaves.

Now look at the last 5. Three of the last 5 (2 Epi's and an Oncidium) average Ca to K ratios of 10:1 :wink: One of the Epi's also has the highest Mg concentration so total divalent cation to K is almost 15:1!

The most lopsided K lover (the Gongora)at best has a 2.6:1 K to Ca ratio.

So overall I think the data in this paper also supports the low K (High Ca/Mg) strategy in wild orchids.

Great data Mike!!


----------



## Rick (Jun 19, 2012)

I actually lost track of a line on that table. It's not the catesetum that has a high k ratio but Caularthron bilamellatum.

The Catesetum is only barely higher Ca than K, but Ca+Mg: K is obviously ahead of K. The deciduous catesetum also reabsorbs a lot of the K back out of its leaves before senescence. Like the Gongora.

The two biggest klinkers in the works are the Caularthron and Epidendrum imatophylum. But these are also associated with ants. So maybe something special about ant plants liking (or having access to) some extra K.


----------



## Stone (Jun 20, 2012)

Rick said:


> > Now if you look at total averages in senescent leaves, K is about 1/2 the Ca and the plants in general are reabsorbing about 1/2 of the leaf K as they abort old leaves. While all the Ca and Mg is lost in the old leaf Since the plant is reabsorbing the K it doesn't need to bring as much new K in from outside the plant. But it will need total replacement of the Ca and Mg.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I noticed that. It points an adaptation of epiphytes to favour K over Ca. and the same for P. The notes go on to say that ground dwellers may have more access to these from leaf litter and soil. Leaf litter inputs and decomposition being very low in the canopy. It would be interesting to see data from the actual trees they are growing on.


----------



## Rick (Jun 20, 2012)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I noticed that. It points an adaptation of epiphytes to favour K over Ca. and the same for P. It would be interesting to see data from the actual trees they are growing on.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 20, 2012)

Rick said:


> .
> 
> 
> > However just because the plants "favour" K it doesn't make them immune to antagonistic imbalances when the resource is supplied in unlimited amounts.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 20, 2012)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 23, 2012)

*Some new ideas*

I recreated and analyzed the Zotz 2004 for Panamanian epiphytes work that Mike came up with. I think its pretty cool.






Notice the big difference in K usage between orchids that cohabitate with ants and orchids that don't. 

Also since the senescing leaves would represent the nutrients actually lost to the plant, those numbers would be more representative of what the plant would actually be looking to reacquire with future growth (rather than the mature leaf values.


----------



## Rick (Jun 23, 2012)

While looking up the ant association thing for the orchids I thought I'd apply it to the non orchids as well.

As it turns out the Peperonia (which has the most crazy high K and reversed K/Ca ratio) is also one of the most popular plants for aboreal ants to "garden".

Although some Clusia are "gardened", the species uvitana is not listed as such, but apparently is a popular plant for leaf shredder ants to harvest for their subterranean nests.

Some Anthurium are also popular ant garden species, but in literature I could only find A. gracilis as definitively tended by ants (which isn't in this list). It would be interesting to see if A fiedrichsthalii is a popular ant garden species.

So it looks like high K use/tolerance/need is still the domain of domesticated plants whether farmed by humans or ants:wink:


----------



## Stone (Jun 24, 2012)

Rick said:


> I recreated and analyzed the Zotz 2004 for Panamanian epiphytes work that Mike came up with. I think its pretty cool.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looking at the figures I notice that even at the lowest K concentration (very last line- senesced leaves) that the N to K ratio is around 1:0.8 ( this is the ratio generally recomended for general nursery stock)
If you take the concentrations in organic p/media into consideration and drop the ratio by half (1:0.4), That comes close to what I'm using at the moment.
Also when you look at the huge range of concentrations of nutrients found in plant leaves: (black bars = deficient to just sufficient). But obviously they can be anywhere within the range.



and considering Ca does not seem to be a limiting factor (that is that very little is resorbed into leaves before they are shed), I wonder whether Ca consentrations seen here are actually utilized by the plant?
There has been many trials where optimum Ca consentrations were found to be much lower than these values.
In other words, In your ''Average (orchid species)''
Losses of nutrients in percenages are aprox. N60%;P30%;K55%;Ca80%;Mg95%.
So how much really needs to be replaced for the plant to function?
In another experiment I was reading, P was sprayed onto branches in a rainforest resulting in an explosion of epiphyte growth. This goes along with the data suggesting that P was the most limiting nutrient in epiphyte ecosystem, with K coming in second and N third.
This doesn't mean you can pour on P and expect miracles but that P is at a premium in the canopy and adding a little- in this case- increased growth.
So what am I saying?....Beats me:rollhappy:


----------



## Rick (Jun 24, 2012)

Stone said:


> Looking at the figures I notice that even at the lowest K concentration (very last line- senesced leaves) that the N to K ratio is around 1:0.8 ( this is the ratio generally recomended for general nursery stock)
> If you take the concentrations in organic p/media into consideration and drop the ratio by half (1:0.4), That comes close to what I'm using at the moment.
> Also when you look at the huge range of concentrations of nutrients found in plant leaves: (black bars = deficient to just sufficient). But obviously they can be anywhere within the range.
> 
> ...



I think one of the big points to consider is the differences between the "average orchid species" and some of the individual orchid species. Two of the three epi's, the oncidium, and the encyclia are showing some very low K relative to both N and Ca. Especially pronounced in the senesced leaves. 

Could this be the reason why a greenhouse full of different species, experiencing relatively similar physical conditions of light/temp/humidity seem to have such diverse problems in growth for many people? In the bigger Zotz paper he did see that there appeared to be some segregation of species on different trees, but couldn't find any physical habitat issues to account for the limited segregation he was observing. 

So how much really needs to be replaced for the plant to function? Well I still know this little old lady in Shelbyville, TN who hasn't used any supplemental feed for her plants in 50 years. Just uses her well water. High in Ca, a little bit of Mg, a trace of P and K. And she has 50 year old plants still functioning.

So starting with that as the bare minimum, How much do they not need?


----------



## Stone (Jun 25, 2012)

I'd like to get a look at this
http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:joh&volume=10&issue=4&article=010


----------



## Rick (Jun 25, 2012)

Stone said:


> I'd like to get a look at this
> http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:joh&volume=10&issue=4&article=010




Looks like a winner! Just from the abstract, the average Ca to K ratio is almost 3:1!


----------



## keithrs (Aug 2, 2012)

I just wanted to chime in and say K-Lite has produced the largest, shiny, brightest green leaves I have ever had. Growths are just a little bigger.

I will admit that I use MSU once a month.


----------



## Brabantia (Aug 2, 2012)

keithrs said:


> I just wanted to chime in and say K-Lite has produced the largest, shiny, brightest green leaves I have ever had. Growths are just a little bigger.
> 
> I will admit that I use MSU once a month.



And ...how many time do you use the K-Lite during a month?


----------



## keithrs (Aug 2, 2012)

Brabantia said:


> And ...how many time do you use the K-Lite during a month?



I water daily at low ppms.


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 2, 2012)

Daily? How many ppm?


----------



## keithrs (Aug 2, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> Daily? How many ppm?



Around 130 T ppm - 30-35 ppm N


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 2, 2012)

That is pretty low. About 1/4 t. per gallon.


----------



## keithrs (Aug 2, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> That is pretty low. About 1/4 t. per gallon.



I made a concentrate.... 1/3 cup per 25 gal.


----------



## keithrs (Aug 2, 2012)

SlipperFan said:


> Daily?



My personal belief is that a low constant diet is better the letting my plants pig out once a week.


----------



## SlipperFan (Aug 2, 2012)

weakly daily


----------



## Brabantia (Aug 3, 2012)

Pesky U.S measures units :evil: but . Very difficult for us to have precise informations. What is 130 T ppm - 30 -35 ppm N? If it is 130 mgr Total fertilyser per liter it is 17 ppm N! If it is for for 1 gal. it is 17/3.75 ppm N.


----------



## keithrs (Aug 3, 2012)

Brabantia said:


> Pesky U.S measures units :evil: but . Very difficult for us to have precise informations. What is 130 T ppm - 30 -35 ppm N? If it is 130 mgr Total fertilyser per liter it is 17 ppm N! If it is for for 1 gal. it is 17/3.75 ppm N.



130 (T)otal ppm - I test the ppm's and pH with a pen in my reservoir which is 25 gal. 


I guesstimated the ppm N from one of Ray's fertilizer calculators. It's only a guesstimate but will get you fairly close. I added about 30 ppm's for micro's. 

If its is indeed lower the 30 ppm N.... Then I'm even happier. Shows that most orchids don't need 125 ppm N for them to grow well!


----------



## Erythrone (Aug 3, 2012)

ppm are no US measurements units ... I think it is used in science all over the world, no??

Part pee million

Partie par million


----------



## Ray (Aug 3, 2012)

yes, parts per million is a global unit of measure.

When talking fertilizer, it is a mass per mass measurement, equivalent to 1 mg per kilogram.

As the bulk density of the K-lite we've gotten has varied so much, I think it's almost impossible to know what mass Keith's 1/3 cup was.


----------



## Rick (Aug 3, 2012)

keithrs said:


> Around 130 T ppm - 30-35 ppm N



Your daily rate of N is only a little lower than my projected weekly rate of 40-50 mg/L N

You feed a lot!! But I'm glad you are liking the results.


----------



## keithrs (Aug 3, 2012)

Rick said:


> Your daily rate of N is only a little lower than my projected weekly rate of 40-50 mg/L N
> 
> You feed a lot!! But I'm glad you are liking the results.



Your not feeding enoughoke:... Your probably right... But if I'm not mistaken John Biernbaum from MSU is fertilizing @ 125 ppm N almost every watering. I'm using about 1/4 of what recommend by MSU.

I would love to see the results in a greenhouse!!!!


----------



## Rick (Aug 3, 2012)

keithrs said:


> But if I'm not mistaken John Biernbaum from MSU is fertilizing @ 125 ppm N almost every watering. I'm using about 1/4 of what recommend by MSU.



Really demonstrates how much slop there is in the system, but also so many unaccounted variables.

I've also fed at much heavier rates (during long days and warmer temps), and get fantastic growth of big multi growth plants short term. But I lost many of these big floppy plants after 5 or so years of this kind of push. Also can't really generalize across every species and hybrid (I think hybrids are inherently selected to handle high K fert too). Looking at the tissue concentration chart of Panamanian epiphytes you can see there is a lot of variability (mostly explained by ant presence) of K in this community of plants.

I also saw a couple of papers of commercial hybrid phale growers that fed at incredible rates (with high K). But their goal is to get things big fast and out the door ASAP. They also tend to use a lot of chemicals for disease and pest control. 

My goal is quite a bit different in both time frame and reduced chemical intervention for mortality reduction.


----------



## keithrs (Aug 3, 2012)

Rick said:


> My goal is quite a bit different in both time frame and reduced chemical intervention for mortality reduction.



I can't agree more!


----------



## Ray (Aug 3, 2012)

When the "MSU" article was published, 125 ppm N was what they had used in evaluating it, and a lot of us took it as a decent recommendation. Not long ago, Bill Argo told me they had not arrived at that level in any scientific manner: "We tried it and it worked".

I used that level at every watering for about 8 years. I have reduced it based upon the reasoning that it is well established that animals are healthier and live longer when fed a complete, yet moderate diet. Might that apply that to plants, too? (If only I could apply it to me.)


----------



## Brabantia (Aug 3, 2012)

@ Keithrs
Thank you very much for the clarification that you give us on preparation of your fertilizer solution. Supplementary question: do you include a kelp extract in your fertilizer regime?


----------



## Rick (Aug 3, 2012)

Ray said:


> When the "MSU" article was published, 125 ppm N was what they had used in evaluating it, and a lot of us took it as a decent recommendation. Not long ago, Bill Argo told me they had not arrived at that level in any scientific manner: "We tried it and it worked".
> 
> I used that level at every watering for about 8 years. I have reduced it based upon the reasoning that it is well established that animals are healthier and live longer when fed a complete, yet moderate diet. Might that apply that to plants, too? (If only I could apply it to me.)



Yes

There is some scientific basis for the 125 or so ppm N target but it's mainly from the agri crop science arena. As mentioned a ways back, fertilizer was mainly developed for corn, which gets somewhere more than 60% of all fertilizer produced, and probably about 80% of the world wide research budget. The balance is primarily for rice and wheat. Ornamental plants get a fraction of a percent of the world fertilizer production and research budget. So it's not hard to find a reference to 100ppm N, but in most cases it traces back to corn. Keeping in mind that the above 3 food crops are annuals, meant for maximum carbohydrate output over a 6-9month lifespan.


----------



## newbud (Aug 3, 2012)

Would it be asking too much for someone to explain what ppm is exactly and how do you measure it in your water? I realize you guys went to school for years to learn this but I'm just wondering if there's a crash course one could take? Thanks


----------



## Rick (Aug 3, 2012)

newbud said:


> Would it be asking too much for someone to explain what ppm is exactly and how do you measure it in your water? I realize you guys went to school for years to learn this but I'm just wondering if there's a crash course one could take? Thanks



PPM stands for parts per million. Its fairly synonymous with mg/L (milligrams per liter in liquid solutions) or mg/Kg (milligrams/Kilogram in solid mixtures).

Measuring "it" depends on the chemical in question. Since we were talking about N (nitrogen), you need a nitrogen specific test to measure it. The are several methods to measure nitrogen from either the ammonia, nitrate, or nitrate concentrations, and I believe urea N is measured as TKN (total Kledjal Nitrogen). You can get cheap and dirty ammonia and nitrate test kits from an aquarium store. But typically we just guesstimate the N in a fertilizer solution by straight math based on the percentages of the different ingredients in the fertilizer.

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/430/430-100/430-100.html

Try the above link for a tutorial Jack


----------



## Brabantia (Aug 3, 2012)

Rick said:


> PPM stands for parts per million. Its fairly synonymous with mg/L (milligrams per liter in liquid solutions) or mg/Kg (milligrams/Kilogram in solid mixtures).
> 
> Measuring "it" depends on the chemical in question. Since we were talking about N (nitrogen), you need a nitrogen specific test to measure it. The are several methods to measure nitrogen from either the ammonia, nitrate, or nitrate concentrations, and I believe urea N is measured as TKN (total Kledjal Nitrogen). You can get cheap and dirty ammonia and nitrate test kits from an aquarium store. But typically we just guesstimate the N in a fertilizer solution by straight math based on the percentages of the different ingredients in the fertilizer.
> 
> ...



Rick: ammonia is also measured by the Kjeldahl method, we measure nitrate (by difference) before and after its conversion in ammonia after its reduction. Urea alone is measured after its hydrolyse (in ammonia) by .... urease.


----------



## Rick (Aug 3, 2012)

Brabantia said:


> Rick: ammonia is also measured by the Kjeldahl method, we measure nitrate (by difference) before and after its conversion in ammonia after its reduction. Urea alone is measured after its hydrolyse (in ammonia) by .... urease.



Thanks for the correction Brabantia
In my lab we measure ammonia by Nesslers, salasilic acid, or ion specific probe methods. Nitrate by cadmium reduction method. Since I need those constituents specifically (for toxicity reasons), TKN doesn't directly separate the ammonia from all the other "bio available" forms of N. Our waste water engineers like to get TKN to measure "total bug food" N for activated sludge plants, but that doesn't help me to measure individual toxic ammonia or nitrate concentrations for fish lethality issues.
TKN also seems to be a cumbersome method that our limited lab equipment does not have capabilities to handle. Maybe HACH has a new test out now, but TKN is a test we generally send out to a more complete analytical lab.


----------



## Rick (Aug 3, 2012)

Brabantia said:


> Rick: ammonia is also measured by the Kjeldahl method, we measure nitrate (by difference) before and after its conversion in ammonia after its reduction. Urea alone is measured after its hydrolyse (in ammonia) by .... urease.



I never run TKN because I can never spell it correctly either


----------



## Rick (Aug 3, 2012)

Jack

Most of the time when a nutrient is not specified (like N, P, or K), ppm is inferred as the TDS or total dissolved solids concentrations of your complete fertilizer mix.

This can be measured at home with a TDS meter. Actually this is just measuring the conductance of the salts in solution as a surrogate for the actual dissolved solids concentration.

If you got the most recent edition of Orchids magazine, Holger Perner has a nice write up on this.


----------



## newbud (Aug 8, 2012)

Ok...thanks for all your help Rick and Brabantia. This is all a little above my head but get the gist of it.


----------



## Mocchaccino (Sep 1, 2012)

I have recently made my K-lite and would like to seek opinion from Ray and Rick.

Here's the analysis of my local water supply (which is so SOFT):

In average,
pH = 8.5
Conductivity at 25 degrees = 154 uS/cm
Total alkalinity (as CaCO3) = 23 mg/L (ppm)
Total hardness (as CaCO3) = 38 mg/L (ppm)
Calcium = 13 mg/L (ppm)
Magnesium = 1.5 mg/L (ppm)

I have a fertilizer which is 20-20-20 (Nitrogen in mixture of urea and ammounium salts; P2O5, K2O) and it contains micronutrients but undefined. I read abax's thread and took it as a reference. I calculated and finalized the mixture in the following proportions: (I don't have CaNO3 in hands so I am just going to substitute with CaCO3)

For 1 Litre of water: 
0.33 g 20-20-20 fertilizer + 0.33 g CaCO3 + 0.33g MgSO4 (Epsom)

which is equivalent to (per gallon):
1/8 tsp 20-20-20 fertilizer + 1/8 tsp CaCO3 + 1/8 tsp MgSO4 (Epsom)

The N:K ratio is not up even to 10:1. Should I increase the N?


----------



## Rick (Sep 1, 2012)

I'm not sure if this is going to cut it for you Mocchacino.

The use of calcium nitrate was not only to get the Ca up, but to replace the nitrogen lost when reducing your 20-20-20.

Also calcium carbonate (limestone) is pretty insoluble in the short term until you get to a pH of about 2. At a pH that is safe for plants it will probably take weeks or months to dissolve.

Also with soft water you also have low alkalinity. This is a better environment for the use of nitrates as your nitrogen source instead of urea and ammonia.

So by cutting down the use of your 20-20-20, you have reduced K relative to Ca Mg (good), but also cut down the amount of N relative to Ca an Mg (probably not so good).

However, given that I know some growers that don't feed at all, and irrigate with hard water (that get good results) you are somewhat replicating what they do, and it may work out just fine.

I am a bit concerned that by using relatively insoluble calcium carbonate, with very soluble mag sulfate, that you could end up reversing the ratio of Ca to Mg that the plants see (which will also not go well for you).


----------



## Mocchaccino (Sep 1, 2012)

Thanks Rick!

I may then have to seek a bottle of CaNO3 for use. For the time being I then heavily reduce the Mg portion in order that the Mg wont exceed Ca.


----------



## abax (Sep 2, 2012)

Mocchaccino, if you'd like to try the K-Lite, I'd be happy to
send you a jar from Ray's website. It's sooo much easier
than trying to mix and balance. If you'll PM your mailing
address to me, I'll be glad to do it.

My name is Angela btw.


----------



## Mocchaccino (Sep 3, 2012)

abax said:


> Mocchaccino, if you'd like to try the K-Lite, I'd be happy to
> send you a jar from Ray's website. It's sooo much easier
> than trying to mix and balance. If you'll PM your mailing
> address to me, I'll be glad to do it.
> ...



Thanks Angela!~ But I am living far beyond your place. I would like to try mixing my own before owning others. It seems a lot fun to me


----------



## Ruth (Sep 10, 2012)

I just got my first package of K-Lite, and I have a couple of questions.
First, I mix my fertilizer in a 5 gallon bucket. I use RO water. Should I use one tsp. per gallon of water? I am assuming that the end result would be 150 ppm N? Is that correct?
2nd, do I still need to add oyster shell for calcium, or is there enough in the K-Lite?
I have been doing my own version of K-lite and and have seen some good results.


----------



## abax (Sep 10, 2012)

I began using K-Lite at half a tsp., but since we're moving
into fall in Ky, I've cut back to 1/4 tsp. per gallon in my
Spot Shot. I've never used RO and can't address that
question. My theory is to go lightly when switching fertilizers until you see exactly how it affects your plants.


----------



## terryros (Sep 10, 2012)

I think it depends on how accurate you are trying to be. After conferring a bit with Ray, I make a 10% stock solution by putting 50 grams of the granular mix in a contained and adding RO until the weight is 500 grams (ends up being very close to 500 mL total solution). Obviously, this requires a scale, but I like the precision.

I keep this stock solution refrigerated between use and it stays crystal clear this way with no precipitation or particulate matter. 20 mL of the stock in 1 gallon of RO creates a 65 ppm N solution that I use with every watering.


----------



## keithrs (Sep 10, 2012)

I use 35 ppm n every watering from a stock. I'm sure Ray would be more then happy to direct you on what to do.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Sep 10, 2012)

I use 1 tsp/gal for vandas, catts, phrag hybrids, and strap-leaf paphs. I use 1/2 tspn/gal for the rest of my paphs, besseae and schlimii, neos and bulbos. Once/week now, later it will be every 2-4 weeks (depending on temperature and winter light levels), with none at all for the cooler growing species paphs. The underlights plants will get fertilized at the same rates, but every other watering.


----------

