# RO system



## practicallyostensible (Nov 12, 2007)

This holiday season is going to be a good one for the orchids (and the fish). I am looking into a a small reverse osmosis system and was wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to brands that they liked or didn't like. It's high time that I invested in one, I'm going through around 10 gallons a week, so I don't need anything really massive. Any input you guys could offer would be much appreciated.


----------



## aquacorps (Nov 12, 2007)

i like my unit from kent marine. buy it from a fish/aquarium web site. it pays to shop around.


----------



## NYEric (Nov 12, 2007)

Or any 'good' hydroponic store. The clowns at my local store were acting-up so I now buy replacement filters from the manuf, Spectrapure.


----------



## Candace (Nov 13, 2007)

IMHO the units are pretty much the same, just different membrane capability and amount of pre-filters/options. I've never heard of anyone who was unhappy with their R.O. unit since they operate similarly.


----------



## Ernie (Nov 13, 2007)

Julia,

Get something bigger than what you think you need!!! Your collection will always grow and once you have it, you'll end up preferring the RO water over tap for drinking and cooking. Also, with a typical system, you likely won't get the gpd (gallons per day) the system is rated at. It depends on your tap cold water pressure, water temperature (i get more gpd on cold days), etc. I got my 5 stage, under sink, tank, 100 gpd (upgraded from 50 gpd) system from
http://www.waterfiltersonline.com/
and also use 
http://www.h2ofilter.net/index.asp
for parts and upgrades
The sites might look cheesy, but I've been doing business with them for years and have never been disappointed in service, product quality, or prices. They also have tons of info. 

-Ernie


----------



## suss16 (Nov 13, 2007)

I just completed renovating my kitchen... and installed the new Merlin system. Yes, it is pricey - but it has no storage tank! (my wife hates the room the tank took up under the sink).

And the water is "on demand". The R/O comes out at a resonable rate. I love it... and never have to wait as my 3 gal tank fills.

It may not be worth the cost difference but I have peace at home and R/O for my plants! And my wife now uses R/O for her tea... she is becoming a convert!


----------



## NYEric (Nov 13, 2007)

Score!


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 13, 2007)

I will second getting a unit that is bigger than what you think you need. 

If you are on a well, check your water pressure before buying.


----------



## Candace (Nov 13, 2007)

Like Ernie, I've bought all my systems and supplies through http://www.waterfiltersonline.com/


----------



## Ernie (Nov 13, 2007)

There are pumps (booster and permeate) for low pressure lines. Most folks with low pressure would probably need the more expensive booster pumps for low pressure to totally max out the gpd. Permeate pumps are a fix that makes decent pressure better not crappy pressure ok. Make sense? 

-Ernie


----------



## practicallyostensible (Nov 13, 2007)

Ernie said:


> There are pumps (booster and permeate) for low pressure lines. Most folks with low pressure would probably need the more expensive booster pumps for low pressure to totally max out the gpd. Permeate pumps are a fix that makes decent pressure better not crappy pressure ok. Make sense?
> 
> -Ernie



Yeah makes sense, kind of, thanks for the info.


----------



## Shadow (May 20, 2009)

I want and need RO unit too. Already asked too many questions at the shop, but they couldn't answer properly about mineralizator. I've been told that using pure RO water for drinking is bad and if I'm planning to use this water for cooking I need the unit with mineralizator. I've asked how much minerals does it add, but the shop assistants knew only that "just enough". I'm interested if this "just enough" won't be too much for my plants? Do you use units with/without mineralizator for watering/cooking? Maybe somebody measured TDS before and after mineralization?


----------



## Ernie (May 21, 2009)

Why, exactly, is RO water bad for drinking? I've heard several people say this and I can't come up with a good answer. 

-Ernie


----------



## Shadow (May 21, 2009)

I've been told that this water has less minerals that human being need for healthy existence. Everybody need minerals. For plants we add RO fertiliser in this water, but we don't have fertiliser for people, so mineralizator is used instead. But I'm afraid that mineralizator + RO fertiliser could be too much for plants. Sad, I thought to use it for myself too.


----------



## Ray (May 21, 2009)

I agree with you, Ernie. I have been selling RO systems and parts for over a year now, and a bunch of them have gone into homes specifically for drinking water applications.

In the case of a plant, absorption is essentially passive - osmosis through cell walls - and if surrounded by pure water only, the driving force is to dilute the ions within the cells and force them out so the concentration will be equal on both sides of the membrane, and that is NOT what you want.

If the water supply was the only way people got minerals, I would expect something similar with the use of RO, but it's simply not the case.

Shadow - there is no need to add extra minerals to RO if you add an RO fertilizer. That's mineralization enough.


----------



## Shadow (May 21, 2009)

Thanks, Ray. 


> there is no need to add extra minerals to RO if you add an RO fertilizer. That's mineralization enough.


Yes, I think the same way too. But I'm wondering if RO water without mineralization is good for people? And if yes, why does RO water mineralizator exist - unnecessary waste of money?


----------



## Ernie (May 21, 2009)

Ray said:


> I agree with you, Ernie. I have been selling RO systems and parts for over a year now, and a bunch of them have gone into homes specifically for drinking water applications.
> 
> In the case of a plant, absorption is essentially passive - osmosis through cell walls - and if surrounded by pure water only, the driving force is to dilute the ions within the cells and force them out so the concentration will be equal on both sides of the membrane, and that is NOT what you want.
> 
> ...



Yep, pure water will hydrate the cells around it more efficiently than "rich" water due to a "weaker" concentration gradient. As long as that doesn't cause the cells to burst (lyse), that's a good thing. Turgid cells are generally desirable. Not entirely sure, but would guess good nutrients in plant cells are moved about actively, not passively??? Possibly even sequestered and not just drifting around in the cytoplasm? So they would not be able to be flushed out by dilution, water would rush in to try to dilute the chemicals in the cells to equilibrium. Once again, we REALLY need a bonafide plant physiologist member here!  

-Ernie


----------



## likespaphs (May 21, 2009)

i thought that r.o. water would pull minerals and other nutrients from one's body, thus stealing essential nutrients. 
i guess i'm wrong?


----------



## Ray (May 21, 2009)

Ernie - you might have a point about the nutrient ions. We definitely need to get a plant physiologist in the discussion.

"Likespaphs" - pull them and put them where? Seems to me that if they're in the body, they will be assimilated.


----------



## etex (Dec 30, 2009)

We just got an RO system. Can I use my Dynagrow fertilizers till used up or do I need an RO fertilizer?


----------



## Shiva (Dec 30, 2009)

I bought my RO system from a box store four years ago and installed it in my greenhouse. I had a problem at first with low pressure and got a booster pump. But once the water began to flow through the filters, the booster pump was not needed anymore. I bought extra filters but never had to change the ones that I got with the unit. The system is still working perfectly, though it takes about a whole day to fill half of my 35 gallons bin, which is fast enough for me. And I don't drink from the bin.


----------



## Ray (Dec 31, 2009)

etex said:


> We just got an RO system. Can I use my Dynagrow fertilizers till used up or do I need an RO fertilizer?



Diane, if you use Dyna-Gro with RO, the pH of the resulting solution will be entirely too low for the well-being of your plants. That was something I "discovered" first hand when I got mine. However, correcting the pH is easy - I found that if I added Pro-teKt in the same volume as the fertilizer concentrate to the solution, it was fine.

There are also pH-Up products available.


----------



## etex (Dec 31, 2009)

Thanks Ray!


----------



## orcoholic (Dec 31, 2009)

I got my RO system from Ray. Best prices and service is good too. Also, why support Lowe's or some other store that doesn't provide us with any good information. Since getting it installed in the fall, my plants have significantly improved. This is the first winter they have shown any decent growth.

I use MSU/RO fertilizer at EC 0f 1.0. Ph is adjusted to about 6.2. The EC and Ph are very important because the orchids won't be able to properly absorb all the nutrients if they are too out of whack. TDS is not as reliable as EC unless you have carefully calibrated the meter and know the type of meter you have.


----------



## Lanmark (Dec 31, 2009)

orcoholic said:


> I use MSU/RO fertilizer at EC 0f 1.0. Ph is adjusted to about 6.2. The EC and Ph are very important because the orchids won't be able to properly absorb all the nutrients if they are too out of whack. TDS is not as reliable as EC unless you have carefully calibrated the meter and know the type of meter you have.



What is EC and how is it measured? What chemicals do you use to adjust your ph up or down?

______________

As for pure RO water diluting the nutrients from the cells of the plants, I would question that assumption. Plants get their minerals from many sources in nature. I am not a plant physiologist, but I know that the rain which falls from the sky and the dew which condenses on leaves are not chock full of minerals. Rain and condensed fog don't kill plants, including the epiphytic orchids which grow high up in trees in the cloud forests, so there must be some mechanism for the plants to hold onto the minerals they need, at least to some extent. There are many times I water my plants with pure RO water and they do not suffer from it. Of course I also use RO water with MSU/RO fertilizer added, but I give them a break from it from time to time.

Human consumption of exclusively RO water isn't dangerous unless one's diet is devoid of minerals. Most of us nowadays get plenty of sodium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and so forth from the foods we eat. Mineralization cartridges are a gimmick to make money for the manufacturers and sellers of these devices. If anything, their primary purpose is to keep drinking water from tasting quite so flat.


----------



## NYEric (Dec 31, 2009)

You may be light in a few minerals but why not.


----------



## Ray (Jan 1, 2010)

EC is electrical conductivity, and there are very sensitive meters used to measure it, as we're talking something in the neighbor hood of 1 milliSiemen/cm.

EC is a far more reliable measure of fertilizer concentration than is a measured TDS, as explained HERE.
________________________________

The RO dilution of orchid "sap" is not an assumption. In discussion with plant physiologists from several universities I have learned that plants have three primary modes for the uptake of minerals:

1) Active, to a limit - if the mineral is available, it will be taken up by the plant up until a certain internal concentration is reached. Calcium and boron fit into that category. (That is not to say they are the only ones, just the only _examples_ I was given.)

2) Active, with no limit - if it's available, the plant will take up as much as it can, socking it away in vacuoles in case of a future shortage. Phosphorus, even though a plant needs little, is apparently in this category. 

3) Totally passive - dependent upon concentration gradients, the plant either takes in or releases the mineral ions. This is where the continued use of pure water only for irrigation can be an issue.


----------



## orcoholic (Jan 1, 2010)

Lanmark,

Ray explained EC. The MSU fertilizer comes with a spec sheet that tells how much fertilizer to add to RO water to get EC of 1. Incidentally, EC of 1.2 is good in the heavy growing months.

I never had to adjust my Ph up. Before installing the RO system, I used citric acid to adjust Ph down. Now, with the RO and the MSU fertilizer, I don't need to adjust anything. My pure RO water is 7 and with the MSU it's around 6.2.

I have heard, *but never seen*, that using straight RO water *all the time* can lead to plant nutrient deficiencies and the decline of the plants. I can't believe that drinking it will lead to any mineral deficiencies in humans. If anyone is worried about that, take a daily multivitamin with minerals. Probably a good idea anyway.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 1, 2010)

Thanks for the info!  Yeah, I wouldn't suggest using exclusively RO or distilled water all the time. I'm pretty sure it would lead to problems. In nature an orchid might get only pure rain water, but it also gets all sorts of plant and animal detritus along with a bevy of microorganisms to break down the detritus thereby releasing minerals for absorbtion. I purposely leach my plants of excessive salts and minerals from time to time by flushing the media and rinsing the leaves with distilled or RO water. I might do this two or three waterings/sprayings in a row before I return to using the MSU solution on a regular basis. I've never encountered any problems in doing this, and my plants look a lot nicer without all the buildup of salts. I guess I thought what was being suggested earlier in this thread was that any use whatsoever of RO or distilled water without added nutrients would damage a plant.


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 1, 2010)

Here is a link about long-term usage of low-tds water for animals (humans but tested on rats). It looks like long-term usage can leach things from the body, and that calcium and magnesium taken up through water can have more of an effect than other supplemented forms or in food. since water normally taken up into our bodies has some 'dirt' in it, the body doesn't have to use as many salts to move elements around. if the water is very clean, minerals and such that move elements around are in effect 'used up' unless alot more is taken in through food to replace it.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized.pdf

very interesting are the health studies that show that people who move from harder water (with calcium and magnesium) to softer water will have increased chances of negative effects on the heart

so, a little here and there is no big deal. all the time pure water doesn't look like a great idea, unless we're talking plants who specifically live in those environments where the water is very pure. remember that humans must always have salt in their diet at certain levels; I just read of bornean jungle people who are always trading with coastal people for salt to supplement their diet. of course westerners seem to usually have more than they need...

direct observation of plants at work that were constantly misted or watered with very low tds water showed that nutrients were leached out of them, and tissue sample studies supported this observation. problem was resolved by always misting with 'seedling fertilizer' at low levels that had higher levels of calcium and magnesium than standard fertilizers. there were also pH problems that came about from using too much pure water on certain plants in soilless potting media, as the root exudates ended up changing the media pH (I think it was usually more a problem with pansies whose pH was heading too high when they preferred lower...)


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 1, 2010)

cnycharles said:


> http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized.pdf



It won't download for me. It starts but then it stops. I went to the website and tried as well. 

I did see this one-sentence summary of the document in question there at the WHO website:

"The expert meeting concluded that only a few minerals in natural waters had sufficient concentrations and distribution to expect that their consumption in drinking water might sometimes be a significant supplement to dietary intake in some populations."

*** Hmmm. I was using Firefox but when I tried IE the document proceeded to download for me at once. 

Having read the article now, I'm glad I only use the RO water for making coffee and still consume the mineralized tap water whenever I want a plain old drink of water. I suppose it might still be a good idea to filter the drinking water with a carbon block type filter, especially since I use municipal "city water".


----------



## Renegayde (Jan 1, 2010)

4. CONCLUSIONS
Drinking water should contain minimum levels of certain essential minerals
(and other components such as carbonates). Unfortunately, over the two past
decades, little research attention has been given to the beneficial or protective
effects of drinking water substances. The main focus was on contaminants and
their toxicological properties. Nevertheless, some studies have attempted to
define the minimum content of essential elements or TDS in drinking water, and
some countries have included requirements or guidelines for selected substances
in their drinking water regulations. Although these are exceptional cases, the
issue is relevant not only where drinking water is obtained by desalination (if
not adequately re-mineralised) but also where home treatment or central water
treatment reduces the content of important minerals and low-mineral bottled
water is consumed.
Although drinking water manufactured by desalination is stabilized with
some minerals, this is usually not the case for water demineralised as a result of
household treatment. Even when stablized, the final composition of some waters
may not be adequate in terms of providing health benefits. Although desalinated
waters are supplemented mainly with calcium (lime) or other carbonates, they
may be deficient in magnesium and other microelements such as fluorides and
potassium, as are most natural waters. Furthermore, the quantity of calcium that
is supplemented is based on technical considerations (i.e., reducing the
aggressiveness) rather than on health concerns. Possibly none of the commonly
used ways of re-mineralization could be considered optimum, since the water
does not contain all of its beneficial components. Current methods of
stabilization are primarily intended to decrease the corrosive effects of
demineralised water.
Demineralised water that has not been remineralized , or low-mineral
content water – in the light of the absence or substantial lack of essential
minerals in it – is not considered ideal drinking water, and therefore, its regular
consumption may not be providing adequate levels of some beneficial nutrients.
This chapter provides a rationale for this conclusion.
The evidence in terms of experimental effects and findings in human
volunteers related to highly demineralised water is mostly found in older
studies, some of which may not meet current methodological criteria. However,
these findings and conclusions should not be dismissed. Some of these studies
were unique, and the intervention studies, although undirected, would hardly be
scientifically, financially, or ethically feasible to the same extent today. The
methods, however, are not so questionable as to necessarily invalidate their
results. The older animal and clinical studies on health risks from drinking
demineralised or low-mineral water yielded consistent results both with each
other and with more recent research, and recent research has tended to be
supportive.
Sufficient evidence is now available to confirm the health risk from drinking
water deficient in calcium or magnesium. Many studies show that higher water
magnesium is related to decreased risks for CVD and especially for sudden
death from CVD. This relationship has been independently described in
epidemiological studies with different study designs, performed in different
areas (with different populations), and at different times. The consistent
epidemiological observations are supported by the data from autopsy, clinical,
and animal studies. Biological plausibility for a protective effect of magnesium
is substantial, but the specificity is less evident due to the multifactorial
aetiology of CVD. In addition to an increased risk of sudden death, it has been
suggested that intake of water low in magnesium may be associated with a
higher risk of motor neuronal disease, pregnancy disorders (so-called
preeclampsia, and sudden death in infants) and some types of cancer. Recent
studies suggest that the intake of soft water, i.e. water low in calcium, is
associated with higher risk of fracture in children, certain neurodegenerative
diseases, pre-term birth and low weight at birth and some types of cancer.
Furthermore, the possible role of water calcium in the development of CVD
cannot be excluded.
International and national authorities responsible for drinking water quality
should consider guidelines for desalination water treatment, specifying the
minimum content of the relevant elements such as calcium and magnesium and
TDS. If additional research is required to establish guidelines, these authorities
should promote targeted research in this field to elaborate the health benefits. If
guidelines are established for substances that should be in deminerialized water,
authorities should ensure that the guidelines also apply to uses of certain home
treatment devices and bottled waters.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 11, 2010)

This set of questions is for Ray, orcoholic, Slipperfan or anyone else who may know the answers which will ease my tortured mind.  :crazy:

I still haven't found or figured out the most useful tidbits of information I had hoped to learn. Maybe I just overlooked them, so please forgive me if that is the case. 

Okay, so I have been digging through this site, through Ray's site, and I have read all that fertilizer stuff published by Bill Argo. I even read the labels which are stuck on the various packets of MSU RO granular fertilizer which I currently have around the house. Yes, I studied chemistry and physics and all those things, but it was a very long time ago for me. I do understand some basic concepts about the electrical conductivity of mineral salts dissolved in water and the variations in conductivity which can arise from the influences of all the possible variables. All of this stuff about PPM and TDS and EC starts out simple enough but quickly becomes very complex. It's all becoming a bit overwhelming and turning into a jumble in my brain. :sob:

I want to use a continuous feed solution for my orchids using MSU RO formula fertilizer every single time I water. I would assume (but I could be wrong) this solution should be more dilute than if I were fertilizing my plants only once each week or once each two weeks or once per month. All of my plants are either mounted or growing in conditions quite equal to being mounted. They dry out quickly. As soon as they are dry, they get watered again. Excess watering solution runs off and is discarded.

*1)* What would be the recommended PPM Nitrogen level and the recommended EC value for a constant-feed solution to be used for every watering on mounted mini vandaceous plants such as Neofinetia falcata which are growing in bright to very bright conditions?

Would it be the 100 PPM Nitrogen you suggested on your website, Ray, or should I use something more or less? Is the 100 PPM of Nitrogen what you like to use in your semi-hydro pots, Ray?

Would the desired EC value be the 1 to 1.2 EC values you previously stated, orcoholic, or are those the values you would use when fertilizing less often?


*2)* Without having to purchase a second TDS meter and/or an EC meter along with Known-Value EC Testing Solutions and without having to engage in complex calculations, is there any way to determine the proper amount of MSU RO granular formula to mix with my RO water to achieve an acceptable approximation of the EC and Nitrogen PPM values which I am seeking to learn in question 1?

Nowhere do I see anything that says "Add X-amount of granular MSU RO formula with X-amount of RO water to achieve X-value EC which is suitable for the constant-feed method of watering mini vandaceous orchids grown in good light." :rollhappy:

I have found the following statements on two different MSU RO formula fertilizer labels in my possession:

"100 PPM Nitrogen -- use 2/3 tsp or 2.8g per 1 gallon RO water"

"125 PPM Nitrogen -- use 3/4 tsp per 1 gallon RO water"

Nothing on either label says how to mix it in order to achieve any particular EC level. The label which gives the 125 PPM Nitrogen instructions recommends weekly use.

My source tap water gives readings of 200 to 260 PPM TDS on my generic TDS meter. The levels tend to vary depending on the time of year, changes in water pressure and temperature and so forth. Readings have consistently been 213 PPM for the past couple of months. I produce RO water with readings which range from 4 to 18 ppm on my generic TDS meter. It never goes below 4 and slowly rises until I replace the membrane when it gets to 18. When I use my generic TDS meter in distilled water, I always get readings of 0 or 1 ppm. 

This morning when I mixed precisely 2.800 grams of MSU RO formula granular fertilizer (using a freshly calibrated digital scale) with precisely one gallon of my RO water which started out at a reading of 14 PPM TDS on my generic TDS meter, I ended up with a reading of 437 PPM TDS. Is this a suitable constant-feed solution to be used for everyday watering of my plants or is it too strong or too weak? Is there any way to make an educated guess as to what the EC of this solution I made would be?

I am looking for guidance and suggestions. I understand there's no way you can give me exact numbers. Your educated guesses and approximations would be grand! :wink: Or am I asking too much? Do I still need to purchase a Known-Value Testing Solution, a second TDS meter and maybe even an EC meter and then calculate and chart out all of these numbers in order to know what to do? 

Ross over at the Orchid Board forum states:

_My mix of MSU is 3.5 cups powder to 1 gallon warmed RO water. I sit the bottle in a sink full of HOT water to assure the solution stays warm till all the salts dissolve. Then I use 1 tbsp (1/2 oz) per gallon RO water in final mix. Yields approx 125ppm Nitrogen solution. (Thanks Ray for the formula)._

I'd love to have a recipe such as that but one which is suitable for constant feed of my Neos.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 11, 2010)

Way over my head, Mark! Too much for my little artist brain.


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 11, 2010)

one thing to consider is that when your mounts (or the pellets in s/h culture) dry, the fertilizer concentration will rise. so, that last drop of water on your neo's roots will be very concentrated because the salts will 'move' towards the water. if you are watering them every day, then maybe even lower fertilizer rates would be helpful for them. what you are going to put in a pot in s/h culture (weekly watering) would be higher because those pots are pretty much 'always' wet though if you go longer they will 'dry' a bit and the fertilizer would be concentrated. so, maybe using lower rates would be helpful.

I don't know if this is a good way to think or not, but if you were trying to translate how much fertilizer you would use in a gallon of water when irrigating once a week down to more frequent waterings (say seven times a week) then divide the weekly fertilizer amount by 7, and put that in your gallon of water. I don't know if this would be too low, but maybe a good target to start at and work upwards from.

There is a quick and dirty way to figure out what ec your fertilizer water is likely to be.... start out by measuring your tap water (or whatever source water) to get it's ec. Mix into the water the amount of fertilizer the bag says will get it to 100 ppm's; measure that ec. take the second ec reading and subtract the ec of the starting water. the amount of fertilizer you added changed the ec reading by x amount. half the fertilizer would yield half the raise in ec - reduce or raise your fertilizer amount until it matches the ec you want in your final irrigation solution. if the amounts on the bag are too much for your final desired ec, then add a teaspoon to your water, measure and go from there (this is if you have a meter graded for ec).

barring all of that, you can visit this page http://www.firstrays.com/tds_and_ec.htm and since tds, ppm's and ec are basically connected (though not always exactly the same), this should explain it. once you figure out that 'this ppm' equals 'this ec' for a few different rates, then you don't have to figure out both; just use your ppm or tds meter. I think you might be trying to figure too much. ...reading into your post again, I noticed that you asked if 400 and something tds of fertilizer water might be too strong or weak for mounted orchids, I would say that it was too strong. I think 400+ tds (figuring that your tap water was basically 0) is the rate of fertilizer that would normally be used for vigorous, quickly growing chrysanthemums which are feed hogs. if I have my values switched around (tds, ec ppm) please let me know

I have to add that I think you may be making this way too complicated and worrying about numbers too much... 100ppm of fertilizer is a very low rate and used for seedlings that can be easily burned by excess fertilizer. very heavy feeding plants would have 400 and up ppm's. There really isn't a need to figure out e.c.'s. If you have an ec meter you can measure what ends up after you mix up what the bag says is 100ppm's of fertilizer. if you have a tds meter, measure what the end result is from what that bag says is 100ppms after mixing in the fertilizer. having a different number from a different scale in my opinion is just converting from celsius to fahrenheit


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 11, 2010)

*Hugs* @ Dot. Ha ha :rollhappy: it's not too complicated for you. The package of MSU RO formula fertilizer I have which recommends mixing it at 125 PPM Nitrogen (3/4 tsp per gallon, using once per week) came from Porters.  You probably made the label. oke:

Thanks Charles. I sincerely appreciate your input!  I see what you are saying about the drying of the mounted orchids between waterings causing the salts to increase in concentration and create the risk of burn. I'm really glad you mentioned that. I needed to be reminded of that aspect of it. Indeed my intention has always been to use something like 1/4 strength fertilizer for my mounted plants, but I've noticed that the recommended mixing strengths for the MSU RO formula varies quite a bit depending on who I buy it from. I imagine this could be because different growers may fertilize at different frequencies and they also grow different types of orchids. Their recommendations are based upon their own experiences.

No one has ever told me the strength at which I should be mixing my MSU RO formula fertilizer for use on Neofinetia falcata, whether for once a month feeding, once a week, or daily. That is part of the reason I am asking these questions.

*I don't know what constitutes "full strength" MSU Fertilizer so that I can dilute it to quarter strength or less for daily use.* 

Charles, you said 100 PPM is considered a low strength fertilizer safe even for seedlings. Are you talking about 100 PPM of Nitrogen or 100 PPM total dissolved salts?

Charles, *I used exactly what the MSU RO formula package said to use in order to achieve 100 PPM of Nitrogen* and it yielded a total of 437 PPM TDS. Subtract out the 14 PPM I started with and obviously I have added a total of 423 PPM. _*If 100 PPM of that is Nitrogen*_, I can only assume the remaining 323 PPM are all the other nutrients and minerals which are included in the MSU RO formula.

I already visited that page you referred to at Ray's about TDS before I made my last post, _and I can't find anywhere on that page which says a certain number of PPM equals a certain level of EC_. It says right there on that page that _*when Ray has achieved the target of 100 to 125 PPM of Nitrogen*, his TDS are measuring between 380 and 475 ppm on the one TDS meter of his and they are measuring between 470 to 590 on the other TDS meter he has_. *It sounds to me like my numbers might be right on target, but I still don't know if that is considered to be full strength or diluted.*

I had never even thought about using EC as a measure of the strength of my fertilizer or quality of my water until Ray and orcoholic brought it up earlier in this thread saying how important it was and how it was so much more accurate of a measure than TDS. It made me worry that the strength of my fertilizer solution might be too weak and actually leaching nutrients out of my plants.

As for me making it more complicated than necessary, lol, I didn't. Perhaps my wording has made it more complicated, but everything I have written is only based upon the numbers being thrown around by First Ray's website and orcoholic. I'm just trying to crunch the numbers and determine what their recommendations would be for my particular species and situation.

Stupid me, I'm just trying to get some simple formula I can use for good results, and in making my explanation, I turned it all into a big octopus. :crazy:


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 11, 2010)

Lanmark said:


> Thanks Charles. I sincerely appreciate your input!  I see what you are saying about the drying of the mounted orchids between waterings causing the salts to increase in concentration and create the risk of burn. I'm really glad you mentioned that. I needed to be reminded of that aspect of it. Indeed my intention has always been to use something like 1/4 strength fertilizer for my mounted plants, but I've noticed that the recommended mixing strengths for the MSU RO formula varies quite a bit depending on who I buy it from. I imagine this could be because different growers may fertilize at different frequencies and they also grow different types of orchids. Their recommendations are based upon their own experiences.
> 
> No one has ever told me the strength at which I should be mixing my MSU RO formula fertilizer for use on Neofinetia falcata, whether for once a month feeding, once a week, or daily. That is part of the reason I am asking these questions.
> 
> ...



Hello again,
When you read a chart that tells you that a fertilizer mix will result in 100 ppm or whatever, usually it's talking about the amount of N in the mix. Since the fertilizer has more than N in it, your total tds/ppm will be higher. EC may be more exact than the total tds of a solution, but it's more of a tolerance feature I would say, maybe like the difference between a reading from a publicly-owned gps reader and a military one; public ones have a slight error built-in to prevent use for something like missle tracking to targets, and the military ones don't have the 'inexact gene' built in. The job gets done and most everyone is happy, and after a long distance you would likely see a difference but for fertilizing plants you really aren't going to see that much difference. Your EC might be slightly more or less than a TDS reading, but again in my opinion you might just as well not worry about it, unless you want to buy an EC meter and measure everything that way. I don't think any company is going to list what the final EC will be of a fertilizer mix because it will change depending on the water it's going into.

Also, there isn't any official 'full-strength' amount of any particular fertilizer, it's all subjective depending on what types of plants you are growing, when you want it to be a certain size,the environmental conditions, the frequency of watering and all of that. Remember, Andy of Andy's Orchids feeds his orchids by grabbing whatever bag of whatever fertilizer is closest at hand. The numbers you point out Ray had from two meters which was in the upper 400's is considered quite a high rate of fertilizer. When I mention a low rate of fertilizer ppm's that is adequate for seedlings, it's just a number off the top of my head. If you have not high tds tap water, a rate of 100 to 150 ppm's of nitrogen as listed on the bag is a normal general seedling rate. Someone else who wants a different growth rate and all may use something slightly higher. If your water has very high tds without fertilizer in it, then to get a low rate of total tds but still have weak fertilizer (seedling or everyday feeding rates), you might need remediation to have a lower starting tds for your water. If you are adding fertilizer to water, I'm pretty sure that nutrients aren't going to get leached from your plants. If you have very low EC water to start with and you just water, you might have that happen, but if you have normal tds tap water then adding fertilizer to it will prevent any leaching. Maybe you can ask around to people who are also growing neofinetias mounted or otherwise, and ask what rates work for them along with their watering frequency and all that. I would start using something fairly low and use it for awhile while you are asking around, and see if things look like they are growing fine or don't look so hot. If they are struggling after a while, try a little more. Fertilizing is not exact unless you have had a university test growing a certain cultivar of plant for a few generations (of plants) under controlled conditions with controlled types and quantities of plant food. After that they can give fairly accurate ideas about what to do under what conditions. Since this hasn't happened with too many orchids (except some phals and others grown for pot plants) then it's more of a guessing game. At work we have pretty good guidelines for what types and amounts of fertilizer work for certain plants, but then this is still a guideline and depends on how fast or slow you want your plants to grow, and what temperatures and all that the plants are exposed to.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 11, 2010)

cnycharles said:


> When you read a chart that tells you that a fertilizer mix will result in 100 ppm or whatever, usually it's talking about the amount of N in the mix. Since the fertilizer has more than N in it, your total tds/ppm will be higher.


Right. That is exactly what I am saying and that is exactly what I did. I made the solution to achieve 100 PPM of Nitrogen per the instructions on the container and it resulted in the TDS value of 437 PPM. Part of that number was the 14 PPM I started with in my own water before adding any fertilizer. 323 PPM of that is the other components of the fertilzer mix, and 100 PPM of that is the Nitrogen.



cnycharles said:


> The numbers you point out Ray had from two meters which was in the upper 400's is considered quite a high rate of fertilizer.


Is it? But Why? Those are the TDS numbers he achieved after he added the amount of fertilizer required to his purified water in order to achieve the 100 PPM level of Nitrogen. It's the same thing I did. Nitrogen does not come alone. It comes with all the other ingredients too. Mix to get 100 PPM Nitrogen and you get a lot of other stuff too.



cnycharles said:


> When I mention a low rate of fertilizer ppm's that is adequate for seedlings, it's just a number off the top of my head. If you have not high tds tap water, a rate of 100 to 150 ppm's of nitrogen as listed on the bag is a normal general seedling rate.


I have low TDS to start with: 14 PPM. I added 2.8 grams of fertilizer per the instructions on the MSU RO formula fertlizer bag to one gallon of water in order to achieve that 100 PPM of Nitrogen which you say is a normal general seedling rate. My resulting Nitrogen PPM of 100 came along with an additional 323 PPM of other stuff. Add in the 14 PPM starting number from my water and the TDS value becomes 437. So how is this considered a normal general seedling rate yet you consider Rays's TDS numbers in the 400s as being high? His TDS numbers in the 400s and mine are both the result of mixing RO water with enough fertilizer to achieve 100 PPM Nitrogen.

Something's not adding up here. :wink: You must be referring to 100-150 PPM TDS as being a normal strength for use on seedlings, not 100 PPM of Nitrogen which has a much higher overall TDS value.
_____________________________________________

I've been growing Neofinetia falcata for years. I have great success with them. I simply wanted to know if there was something I was doing wrong or if there was something I could be doing better. I was introduced here in this thread to the idea that measuring Electrical Conductivity directly was a much better idea than just using a measuring spoon or attempting to interpret the Total Dissolved Solids number. I wanted to understand this new and improved way of doing things. Unfortunately, I still don't. I guess I should just shut up and buy the testing solutions and and the EC meter and figure it out for myself. :rollhappy:

There was talk here of RO water being bad for plants and so forth. It made me wonder if I was using it on my plants too often. I also thought, what should I do if I fertilize a plant using a stronger solution but only do it once every two to four weeks? What then should I use to water and mist this plant with in the interim? All these years everyone has said over and over how terrible it is to use tap water on orchid plants. But here now they are saying how pure water will damage a plant too, so I thought what should I do? I can't use tap water, I can't use pure water, and I'm equally certain I can't just use full strength fertilizer every time I water a plant without frying it to death. :rollhappy: And now you are saying there is no such thing as "full strength fertilizer" oke: Should I dilute it? But wait, how do I dilute it if I don't know what full strength is? 

Normally I water every time using RO or Distilled water mixed with MSU Fertilizer RO formula to get a value of about 31 PPM Nitrogen and a TDS value of about 109. I give my plants a break from fertilizer one day out of every week on average by thoroughly flushing them with plain RO or Distilled water. I think I'll just stop worrying about it and do what I have been doing all along for the past decade +  I have no idea if the fertilizer regimen I am using is too weak or too strong, but my plants grow and bloom. I think there's always room for improvement and it's always good to learn more, but I can see this is getting to be a nonproductive effort on my part and I'm probably just annoying everyone in the process. :evil: Sorry to trouble you all with my questions. I'll just drop it.  :sob:


----------



## Ray (Jan 12, 2010)

Damn! I wish I had not been away - I might not have had to read all of this!!!


I believe the reason nurserymen use nitrogen loading as the control is fairly simple:

Nitrogen is the single, largest mineral used by a plant, i.e., the "most important" one.
As the levels of the other mineral ions will (optimally) change based upon the types of plants grown, it's easier to focus on ppm N, when using a specific formula.

Poinsettia growers have clearly established that it takes 1/2 gram of nitrogen to get a plant from cutting to full bloom (full bract?). By taking into account the pot size, volume of medium, absorption capacity of the medium, and time until harvest, they can adjust their watering frequency and fertilizer concentration to provide that - no more and no less.

Orchid-growing is far more diverse, both in terms of needs of the genera and species, types of culture, and cultural conditions, that we cannot possibly be that focused, relegating us to the "let's approximate" technique.​
100-150 ppm N was Bill Argo's recommendation for use at every watering for a *mixed collection of plants grown at MSU*. The implications of that include:

At that concentration, some plants might be getting too much, others might be getting too little.
If you grow under higher-PAR conditions, you might want to bump that up a bit, to go along with the higher growth rate.

My own experience in a greenhouse in southeastern PA (no supplemental light, but RH is maintained in the 60%-70% range), growing stuff mounted, in baskets, s/h culture, and "normal culture" using LECA and bark-based mixes, with genera ranging from catts, encyclias, cymbidiums, paphs, phrags, phals, neofinetias, ondiums and their various intergeneric hybrids, botanicals like cochleantes, bollea, pescatorea and the like, oddball species, vandas, and zygopetalums, is that 125 ppm N for all at every watering seems to be just fine - even with the potential for concentration upon drying Charles mentioned.​
The labels I put on the Greencare MSU jars I repackage does not have the EC info on it primarily because folks don't usually use it, and I didn't have space! I have, however, retyped the info on the label as it comes from Greencare:
RO Formula
Well-Water Formula​


----------



## etex (Jan 12, 2010)

I just got my MSU Pure Water Special by Green Care and the label says 1 tsp per gallon, so I would assume this was full strength. Will use a little less for babies. Would adding Protekt still be useful?
Can not see a problem drinking RO water. It is better than the crap we have out here in the country. The bottled drinking water we have also uses RO, in addition to Carbon filtration,Ultra filtration,Submicron filtration,Ozonation and ultraviolet light.
Low Magnesium can cause torsades de pointes, a very nasty ventricular arrhythmia that is quite scary to see, but is easily treated with IV Magnesium. Many Cardiac patients are on potent diuretics that pull minerals from their bodies.Have worked as a Cardiac Nurse for several years and no one ever pointed to RO water as a cause of CV disease. Besides, we get our minerals from other sources.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 12, 2010)

Thanks Ray 

And Diane, I also wonder if drinking all the crap found in our city water isn't in fact worse for us than losing out on the minerals by drinking the filtered RO water. Spinach, legumes, and nuts are all good sources of magnesium in our diets.

I don't know, Diane, if adding ProTekt would be useful or if it is even necessary.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 12, 2010)

Lanmark said:


> The package of MSU RO formula fertilizer I have which recommends mixing it at 125 PPM Nitrogen (3/4 tsp per gallon, using once per week) came from Porters.  You probably made the label. oke:


It's true -- based on the information given to us from Greencare.



Lanmark said:


> No one has ever told me the strength at which I should be mixing my MSU RO formula fertilizer for use on Neofinetia falcata, whether for once a month feeding, once a week, or daily. That is part of the reason I am asking these questions.
> 
> *I don't know what constitutes "full strength" MSU Fertilizer so that I can dilute it to quarter strength or less for daily use.*


The 125 ppm is based on MSU's research on orchids -- this would be considered to be "full strength." MSU had all kinds of orchids when they did their research, but I'm not sure that they had any Neos. However, I truly don't think it makes any difference. The fertilizer at that strength was meant to be used once a week. I don't think it hurts to skip a fertilizing now and then. But plants seem to do better with regular feeding. 

I dilute it down to about a quarter-strength in the water I spray on my mounted plants every day or two. But then, I'm an experimenter, not a scientist.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 13, 2010)

SlipperFan said:


> I dilute it down to about a quarter-strength in the water I spray on my mounted plants every day or two.



That's what I generally do too. From time to time I give them higher concentrations, and they also get some blasts of pure water as well. 
___________________________________

***I want to say thank you again to cnycharles, Ray, etex, orcoholic and Slipperfan for the great replies to my recent vociferously wordy posts.***
 Ya'll rock!
___________________________________

Getting down to the business of RO water systems again...after we run our mineral-rich source water through the RO membrane, there usually remain a few PPM of dissolved solids. Some people might only have 2 or 4 PPM remaining, I generally have 8-13 PPM, and some people with really "hard" source water might end up with 30 or even 40 PPM still remaining in their water after it has gone through their RO system. You can get rid of these additional dissolved solids by employing one or more deionization cartridges at the tail end of your RO filtration system, but is it really necessary to do this when the water is to be used for orchids? The remaining few PPM of dissolved solids usually consist mostly of silicates, phosphates and nitrates. These things are bad news for delicate micro-ecosystems found in salt water aquariums, but they sure sound like plant food to me.  What do you think?


----------



## Ernie (Jan 13, 2010)

etex said:


> I just got my MSU Pure Water Special by Green Care and the label says 1 tsp per gallon, so I would assume this was full strength. Will use a little less for babies. Would adding Protekt still be useful?



Diane,

ProTeKt will increase your pH. We use it with DynaGro formulas which tend to lower pH in RO water. We get a high pH when adding MSU RO to RO water and need to decrease it. We use vinegar at about 1 Tbsp per 25 gallons to lower pH when using MSU RO. 

pH is important for nutrient availability as previously stated. But we test pH when we mix up fertilizer AND the runoff from watering (very easy with s/h culture!). We are most concerned with what the ROOTS see not what the fertilizer solution pH is in the bucket. 

Also, "pure" water changes pH readily since it has little/no buffering capacity. The pH of your RO water fresh out of the tap might be high, but after sitting out for a short time might lower. Ours comes out a ~8 and drops to ~5 after 12 hours or so. 

Wow, this turned into a beefy thread. Good job all. :clap:

-Ernie


----------



## Roth (Jan 14, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Yep, pure water will hydrate the cells around it more efficiently than "rich" water due to a "weaker" concentration gradient. As long as that doesn't cause the cells to burst (lyse), that's a good thing. Turgid cells are generally desirable. Not entirely sure, but would guess good nutrients in plant cells are moved about actively, not passively??? Possibly even sequestered and not just drifting around in the cytoplasm? So they would not be able to be flushed out by dilution, water would rush in to try to dilute the chemicals in the cells to equilibrium. Once again, we REALLY need a bonafide plant physiologist member here!
> 
> -Ernie



They are moved both actively and passively, that's the problem. The whole plant physiology is a wide field that required years of knowledge and experiment to start to understand a little bit. Even so, it is not always practical, and does not replace skill and practice.

One example, a bit related to the question.

If plants are supplied with nitrate, the nitrate will be reduced to nitrite, then to ammonia. Simple, right? 

The key problem being that if you supply calcium at the same time, the reduction of the nitrate will be made in the roots, if you supply potassium, in the leaves, where the nitrate ion will be transported first... And if you do not have enough molybdenum - which can occur in the coconut products, as molybdenum is readily blocked by coconut, the nitrate will just travel to the leaves, be stored, and never used.

Now, the key problem is that quite a few ions cannot be used alone by the plant, and by using nitrate, you can push an excess of calcium and potassium inside the plant.

If you make a foliar analysis for total N, everything looks smooth and fine even with no molybdenum. Then you have to investigate both nitrate content of the leaves and the molybdenum level. 

As for pure water, it will definitely do damage to the vacuoles and to the root tips first, by a simple osmotic process. It can 'blast' root tips easily.

Back to the RO system, I am writing for a while a paper on that. One thing you must pay attention, especially in Florida, is the boron content of your water. RO systems usually do not remove boron, as they are not a physical filter. I explained that already, but I think the priority when using RO water is to check the tap water analysis for boron, I just got a request from a grower who has a big mess with boron right now, as he though the RO would care of that as well...


----------



## Ray (Jan 14, 2010)

> Getting down to the business of RO water systems again...after we run our mineral-rich source water through the RO membrane, there usually remain a few PPM of dissolved solids. Some people might only have 2 or 4 PPM remaining, I generally have 8-13 PPM, and some people with really "hard" source water might end up with 30 or even 40 PPM still remaining in their water after it has gone through their RO system.



I don't agree with that at all - ignoring the variability and inaccuracy of TDS meters, if you're really getting above about 10 ppm in your "pure" water stream, your system is not doing it's job, that is, you need a new membrane.

Keep in mind how an RO membrane works, compared to other "purification" means:

Let's take a carbon filter to remove organics, for example. The water flows around a bunch of granules of activated carbon. If the organic molecule happens to pass into one of the zillions of tiny crevices in the carbon that were created in the activation (heating) process, it will be adsorbed and stay there, removing it from the water. If the molecule bypasses the first crevice, it still has a chance to be captured by another. Higher degrees of activition, larger filters, and lower incoming concentrations increase the *probability* that the molecules will be trapped, but don't guarantee it. So, if the incoming solution is higher in organics, all else being the same, one expects a higher level in the output.

An RO membrane, by contrast, is a mechanical barrier. The membrane is full of microscopic "holes" that are sized to allow water molecules to pass, but effectively block larger molecules. Having more or fewer larger molecules in the feed stream has no impact of the effectiveness of the membrane (but will affect its life).

The carbon filter is like an array of speed traps and the organics are speeders - most will get caught, but a few will slip through. The greater the number of speeders, the more will be lucky.

The RO membrane is like a very narrow doorway - no matter how many fatties there are in the group, none of them is going to get through, only the skinny people.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 15, 2010)

Ray said:


> I don't agree with that at all - ignoring the variability and inaccuracy of TDS meters, if you're really getting above about 10 ppm in your "pure" water stream, your system is not doing it's job, that is, you need a new membrane.



I disagree.

My RO membrane is a GE Osmonics thin film composite membrane. Some RO membranes are cellulose acetate membranes. But that's not my point; I'm just stating the facts about my membrane.

My membrane is rated "Average NaCl Rejection: 98%" ...it doesn't say anything about 100%, and it definitely says the word "average" and _not_ "absolute". Most RO membranes I have seen for sale in the market are advertised as removing "up to" anywhere from 93% to 98% of dissolved solids. Usually the higher gallons per day the filter is rated for, the lower the rejection rate it claims to have. I know there are super high efficient membranes which remove everything, but most of the RO membranes I've seen for sale aren't of that type.

If I were to add a second or third inline membrane module to my filtration system and some deionization chambers then I would expect 100% pure water, but I haven't, so I don't. My water pressure and temperature vary as do the TDS levels of my source water. If I have 400 PPM to start, a 98% reduction would leave me with 8 PPM. If I start with 100 PPM, a 98% reduction would leave me with 2 PPM.

As far as I know from the information I have read at various water treatment websites including GE who manufactured my membrane, source water pressure and temperature affect the efficiency of the membrane through mechanisms such as contractions and expansions of the film which cause slight fluctuations in the size of the microscopic pores. As the membrane is repeatedly used over time, such useage and simple aging also are both factors in the reduction of the efficiency of the membrane. When the membrane slows and/or the TDS levels begin to rise, the time has come to get a new one.

Personally I don't have a problem with my RO water containing 13 PPM TDS as it does today according to the cheap little TDS meter I have. Last night I had 8 PPM. It might be right or it might be wrong, but at least I know my meter is consistent. Distilled water invariably tests at 0 or 1 PPM, and RO water from just about every single grocery store in my area consistently reads at 18 PPM; so I'm still doing better than what I can get at my local store. It's doing its job. I refuse to purchase and lug jugs of distilled water, and a water distillation unit at home isn't what I want to be messing with. RO is easiest for me.

According to Sanderianum's post, some of those few remaining parts per million in my water might be boron too...maybe in the form of a borosilicate.


----------



## Roth (Jan 15, 2010)

Actually, a RO is not quite a physical barrier. 

It works as a physical barrier for some larger molecules, and as ion repellent for quite a lot of ions, including boron, using an electrostatic scheme, and rejection through the waste water. That's why some of the non-ionized salts and quite a few gas, including ammonia, will cross the RO membrane easily...

There are plenty of docs on internet about what a RO is, and about what it is not, and that's complicated to say the least. From my practical side, I got people who had a very strong RO water membrane, and they got some dozen of thousands of plants scrwed up by a boron toxicity. And the funny thing being that some boron compounds do not add anything to the TDS or EC readings, because they are not ionized...

One introduction to some problems of the RO systems can be found here:

http://www.membranes.com/docs/papers/04_ro_water_chemistry.pdf


----------



## Ray (Jan 15, 2010)

Sanderianum said:


> It works as a physical barrier for some larger molecules, and as ion repellent for quite a lot of ions, including boron, using an electrostatic scheme, and rejection through the waste water. That's why some of the non-ionized salts and quite a few gas, including ammonia, will cross the RO membrane easily...


Quite correct - it's a combo thing, but back to my scientific disagreement with Lanmark for a moment (I love how we can do this here without the "Jane you ignorant ****" attitudes), yes, the membranes are sometimes rated as X% rejection of NaCl, but it is my understanding that such a specification is a statement of the tolerance in the "hole" size, i.e., X% of the holes are small enough to block the NaCl, and should not be construed to suggest that the membrane is only going to block X% of whatever is in the input stream.

It would be possible to produce a membrane that will reject 100% of the NaCl, but it's cost is prohibitive for the benefit, and as you noted, the output would likely be very low, unless the membranes were huge, of course.

I'll absolutely agree with you that RO water with apparent TDS levels in the teens is fine.

I have never heard of boron toxicity due to RO use, but i am pretty sure any in the water is not a borosilicate - Pyrex glassware is borosilicate, and is quite insoluble in water.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 15, 2010)

Ray said:


> Quite correct - it's a combo thing, but back to my scientific disagreement with Lanmark for a moment (I love how we can do this here without the "Jane you ignorant ****" attitudes), yes, the membranes are sometimes rated as X% rejection of NaCl, but it is my understanding that such a specification is a statement of the tolerance in the "hole" size, i.e., X% of the holes are small enough to block the NaCl, and should not be construed to suggest that the membrane is only going to block X% of whatever is in the input stream.



Okay, perhaps that particular statement should not be construed to suggest that the membrane will only block X% of whatever is in the input stream, but when I read the the marketing materials and spec sheets for the various RO membrane units out there for sale, it seems to be very clearly implied by all of them that the higher the gpd rating given to the RO membrane, the lower the overall rejection rate will be. If I use a 150gpd RO membrane, my resultant purified water will in fact contain more TDS than if I were to use a 50gpd unit.

Hehehe...I'm seriously thinking now of adding one or more deionization cartridges after my RO membrane. I currently have two types of sediment filters, a carbon filter, and a KDF filter inline before my source water reaches the RO membrane. I carefully monitor each of these and replace as needed (probably more often than needed).

The pure water stream leaving my RO membrane is then post-processed by another carbon filter before entering my collection container. I'd love to have RO water which always reads 0 or 1 PPM on my TDS meter, but it's entirely possible there'd still be potentially damaging elements present in my purified water when the meter readings are that low.

I guess the bottom line for each of us would be how pure is pure enough? Each person would have to make that decision for themselves based upon what species of plant they grow or what type of aquarium they have or what application their end-product purified water is intended to be used for.

:rollhappy: @ Ray (I'm still choking back the laughter and tears about "Jane") Just think how boring our lives could be without the awesome collective volume of humor with which Saturday Night Live has enriched our lives!


----------



## etex (Jan 15, 2010)

Yea,Saturday Night Live used to rock!! Good reference!!LOL


----------



## Ray (Jan 15, 2010)

Lanmark:

OK. You have now added yourself to the list of people I'd like to spend an afternoon with over a bottle (or so....) of wine (or whatever).

Seems to me we should probably establish the SLS - Slippertalk Libation Society - with regular meetings. Can you imagine what that would be like?

Could we get an AOS affiliation?


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 15, 2010)

Ray said:


> Lanmark:
> 
> OK. You have now added yourself to the list of people I'd like to spend an afternoon with over a bottle (or so....) of wine (or whatever).
> 
> ...



Only if we use RO water. oke:


----------



## Roth (Jan 15, 2010)

Based on my empirical experience with low TDS/EC below 100microsiemens approximately, if your area does not have chromium or boron, your water is fine for orchids, period, and no need to bother any further...


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Jan 15, 2010)

Ray said:


> ... Could we get an AOS affiliation?



oke: Did you mean an AA affiliation? :rollhappy:

This has been an entertaining and educational thread.


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 16, 2010)

Ray said:


> Lanmark:
> 
> OK. You have now added yourself to the list of people I'd like to spend an afternoon with over a bottle (or so....) of wine (or whatever).
> 
> ...



Sounds awesome, Ray! :drool: Dot can drink RO water as she has suggested while the rest of us devise a way to quick-ferment vanilla orchid blossoms to create a wicked brew. Sanderianum can analyse it for microsiemens, etex will think of exciting things to add to it to make it more nutritious, and we can all party and dance to old tunes by Jane's Addiction :wink: while the moths make tarts of themselves in the moonlight. :rollhappy:


----------



## Ernie (Jan 16, 2010)

Now we're getting somewhere!  

-Ernie


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 16, 2010)

Hehehe... Ernie likes to party!


----------



## etex (Jan 16, 2010)

Sounds like a plan!!


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 16, 2010)

Lanmark said:


> Sounds awesome, Ray! :drool: Dot can drink RO water as she has suggested while the rest of us devise a way to quick-ferment vanilla orchid blossoms to create a wicked brew



what about fermented salep or something like that?


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 16, 2010)

cnycharles said:


> what about fermented salep or something like that?



Salep is good, but do we have to ferment it? How about just use it as a mixer.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 16, 2010)

Lanmark said:


> Sounds awesome, Ray! :drool: Dot can drink RO water as she has suggested while the rest of us devise a way to quick-ferment vanilla orchid blossoms to create a wicked brew. Sanderianum can analyse it for microsiemens, etex will think of exciting things to add to it to make it more nutritious, and we can all party and dance to old tunes by Jane's Addiction :wink: while the moths make tarts of themselves in the moonlight. :rollhappy:


Don't relegate me to drinking water! oke:


----------



## Lanmark (Jan 17, 2010)

SlipperFan said:


> Don't relegate me to drinking water! oke:


:chick: < how it feels to be relegated


:wink: I think we'd all be willing to share the good stuff with you. ​


----------

