# Fertilyser dilution. Where is the limit?



## Brabantia (Jun 8, 2013)

The concentration of the various Oligo-elements in the MSU was studied for a use at 125 ppm N (recommended concentration). It is rarely used at this concentration, but more often in the range 65 ppm N and even less 40 ppm N for Paphios. KLite oligos being in there same concentration than in the MSU (versus Nitrogen) same situation occurs with these ... oligos are very diluted. I suppose that to assume there metabolism the plants require a minimum concentration in B, Mo, Zn... . One question calls out to me: does remains sufficient the concentrations in various oligos when we prepare solutions with low concentration in Nitrogen such as for Paphios or Masdevallias? In another way must the concentration in oligos be proportional compared with that the Nitrogen? Thank you for your comments.


----------



## Stone (Jun 8, 2013)

Brabantia said:


> The concentration of the various Oligo-elements in the MSU was studied for a use at 125 ppm N (recommended concentration). It is rarely used at this concentration, but more often in the range 65 ppm N and even less 40 ppm N for Paphios. KLite oligos being in there same concentration than in the MSU (versus Nitrogen) same situation occurs with these ... oligos are very diluted. I suppose that to assume there metabolism the plants require a minimum concentration in B, Mo, Zn... . One question calls out to me: does remains sufficient the concentrations in various oligos when we prepare solutions with low concentration in Nitrogen such as for Paphios or Masdevallias? In another way must the concentration in oligos be proportional compared with that the Nitrogen? Thank you for your comments.



If all trace elements are in sufficient quantity, it is the nitrogen (mainly) that determines how much the plant grows. But of course for the plant to carry out functioning well, the proportion of micros must increase along with the N but there is a very wide tolerence when it comes to varying N levels and trace element levels. For instance if you used a ''standard fertilizer'' with standard trace element concentrations, you could easily double the N from time to time without seeng any trace element deficiencies.


----------



## ALToronto (Jun 8, 2013)

I would imagine that the effects of trace elements on plants are similar to the effects of vitamins and minerals on people: the relative proportions are more important than the actual amounts. When vitamins and minerals are out of balance, the result can be worse than none at all. 

I personally had a problem with an imbalance of copper/zinc, and I haven't had a cold in the 6 years since it was corrected. Earlier, I had an excess of beta-carotene, which also resulted in some serious health problems. Even though I had no deficiencies in any of the vitamins or minerals, the negative effect of the imbalances was greater than any positive effects of vitamin supplementation.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 9, 2013)

Al, you are lucky to have learned about your mineral imbalance. I think most doctors don't understand this.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 9, 2013)

I think what Brabantia is commenting on is the fact that in any fertilizer the proportions and absolute amounts of macro and micro nutrients are specified at a set dilution. When we further dilute down the amount of product to lower the nitrogen ppm we give less micronutients.
I agree that might be a problem. To counter that, rotating in another fertilizer - say kelp etc, and adding occasional doses of, say, Superthrive, might address that issue (that's what I do).


----------



## Rick (Jun 9, 2013)

You might look into how much is in nature.

The result will most likely look the similar as for K. 

When you live in a place that rains like it does in the tropics, the micronutrients are also very dilute.

Also look at other indicator species in the downstream receiving bodies. Aquatic crustaceans are found world wide, and are very sensitive to the micro metals. (Copper for instance acutely toxic around 10 ppb in soft water). 

Excess K doesn't only negatively impact Ca and Mg uptake, but other metals such as iron, zinc, copper, and manganese.

Taking K down to environmentally relevant concentrations makes it easier to take up the micros (even in dilute form).


----------



## Brabantia (Jun 10, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> I think what Brabantia is commenting on is the fact that in any fertilizer the proportions and absolute amounts of macro and micro nutrients are specified at a set dilution. When we further dilute down the amount of product to lower the nitrogen ppm we give less micronutients.
> I agree that might be a problem. To counter that, rotating in another fertilizer - say kelp etc, and adding occasional doses of, say, Superthrive, might address that issue (that's what I do).


Thank you for your help Ozpaph. This is exactly what I want to ask. English US has some subtleties that for me are not easy to manage.

I have the possibility to vary the oligo's in my regime because to prepare my fertilyser solution I am using 4 bottles: 1 with the oligos, 1 with Iron EDTA, 1 with Calcium nitrate and an other with Ammonium phosphate Potassium nitrate and Magnesium sulfate. As we make it in hydroponic culture.


----------



## keithrs (Jun 10, 2013)

Most of us are using kelp in are fertilizer regimen. It will supply all different types of elements in the form of micros. Like Rick said... I don't think nature will supply great amounts of micros in a concestant matter like we do. Most of us that are using 35-75 ppm N are using it more often then recommended also. So lowwer, more contestant applcations will make up for the fact that where not using as recommended. Remember that 125 ppm N was not a scientific conclusion, more of an educated guess.


----------



## NYEric (Jun 10, 2013)

The answer is: "you can dilute it down until it is just water." :evil:


----------



## Stone (Jun 11, 2013)

I obviously didn't make my first reply very clear.
The basic point of plant nutrition is still being missed.

N is the key nutrient. Everything else must be supplied in relation to N.

The need for micro nutrients by a plant is directly related to its use of N. ( Thats why you can feed an orchid nothing at all for long periods of time and still have it remain healthy )

There is no point in retaining the levels of trace elements in a feed when you reduce the N. What is the plant going to do with them? Or do we think that Paphs need more trace elements than other plants?

Feeding a healthy plant with minor elements only will do absolutely nothing for it. In fact you could induce toxicities if you add too much. (If it does help, then there was a deficiency in the plant to begin with)

Only with increasing amounts of N do you eventually need to increase trace elements.

By reducing the concentration of a complete fertilizer with trace elements, the FIRST deficiency you will eventually see is N.

Relying on kelp only to supply all trace elements will eventually lead to deficiencies. Supply of trace elements must come from fertilizers.

We use kelp for its growth stimulating properites. There are not enough trace elements in kelp to satisfy a plant which is being well fed with N

IN SHORT! If you reduce the N you can reduce everything else by the same amount.


----------



## keithrs (Jun 11, 2013)

Stone said:


> IN SHORT! If you reduce the N you can reduce everything else by the same amount.



Why didn't you just say that in the first place. oke:


----------



## Rick (Jun 13, 2013)

NYEric said:


> The answer is: "you can dilute it down until it is just water." :evil:



The only way you can do this is by using RO or distilled water.

Even rain water can end up with some trace goodies in it.

Most surface/tap waters and certainly well water supplies have adequate trace metals for plant growth.

Mike I think you need to look at the analysis of some of the kelp extracts available.

Plenty of trace metals and usable N. Some orchids actually prefer amino acids as a N source which are relatively abundant in the extracts.

The amount of hormone (auxin and cytokinins) that everyone gets excited about are only in very low concentrations relative to the basic fertilizer components. You can definitely grow a lot of stuff on nothing but kelp if you wanted too.

http://www.firstrays.com/kelp.htm


----------



## Stone (Jun 13, 2013)

Rick said:


> water.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 13, 2013)

http://www.uky.edu/Ag/HLA/anderson/orgfert1.pdf

Did you forget this one?

Are those just imaginary plants growing in this study?


----------



## Rick (Jun 13, 2013)

Stone said:


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


----------



## Stone (Jun 13, 2013)

Rick said:


> > Are those just imaginary plants growing in this study?[/
> 
> 
> 
> ?? Most if not all of the trial quotes there are positive. Don't get me wrong I love the stuff. Wouldn't be without it. I've seen some fantastic improvements using it over the years. But I wouldn't use it alone without more conventional ferts. Actually I also read that Kelpac is the only product made without alkaline extraction or heat. I must ask Ray if he will export!


----------



## Stone (Jun 13, 2013)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's funny you should use the nutrient requirements of growing a hectare of hay in a single growth season (quite and incredible amount of biomass) to the amount need for a single small orchid growing in a pot. In this article the amount of copper "consumed by a hectare of grass" is more than the total dry weight of a multigrowth Cattelya.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 13, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not comparing the two. But do you really think you could use N and Kelp only and get good long term results with orchids?
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 13, 2013)

Rick said:


> > But I also think you can grow orchids long term just fine at 2-5 ppm of N every other day or so, and cut that big wasted dose by another 75%.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 13, 2013)

Stone said:


> I obviously didn't make my first reply very clear.
> The basic point of plant nutrition is still being missed.
> 
> N is the key nutrient. Everything else must be supplied in relation to N.
> ...



Mike, is there proof that that's true? Its NOT true for humans (as I understand things). For an off the top of my head example if you dont eat protein (nitrogen for humans)you still need a fixed amount of Vit B12/C etc to prevent deficiency and ill health. Its entirely possible that many cellular processes need micros regardless of 'growth'. Then, of course, there's the arguement about whether supra-normal levels of micros/vitamins have added benefit.


----------



## Rick (Jun 13, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > They will grow but you will get smaller growths, smaller p/bulbs and eventually fewer flowers and inferior quality.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 13, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> Mike, is there proof that that's true? Its NOT true for humans (as I understand things). For an off the top of my head example if you dont eat protein (nitrogen for humans)you still need a fixed amount of Vit B12/C etc to prevent deficiency and ill health. Its entirely possible that many cellular processes need micros regardless of 'growth'. Then, of course, there's the arguement about whether supra-normal levels of micros/vitamins have added benefit.



I think comparing plants to people is really getting into dangerous territory especially since I know even less about human physiology than I do about plants. But for the sake of argument.............
Firstly if you don't eat protein you would not maufacture cells hense not only would you not need B12 but you would die. If though you did eat enough protein to make new cells then you would also need the B12 for the formation of blood and etc. 
So the way _I_ see it, as a cell is produced in a plant it will need all the trace elements to support the fuctioning of that cell. A plant cannot become deficient in a trace element by just sitting there and not growing. (which it can do) As long as there is no leaching from tissues, a dormant plant could theoretically remain in suspended animation without producing new cells for months and hence not require the addition on some nutrient to maintain itself other than water. I guess there will be some ''ticking over'' of function as photosynthesis continues but for our puposes it is not growing therefore does not need a continuing supply of of a particular element to stop it becomng deficient.
Of course I'm not talking about ratios between elements OR minimum OR optimum requirements of elements needed by paphiopedilum. No one really knows that and its probably different for every species but its proven that by reducing N, plant growth (cell growth) slows down and hence so does the need for other nutrients.
Look at it this way: You are building a house, The timber is the N, the Plaster is the K, the paint is the P. and the nails and fittings is everything else.
You decide you don't need that extra bedroom so you remove that amount of timber from your order. Do you still need the door knobs and the nails for that room?


----------



## Stone (Jun 13, 2013)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > How do they survive in the wild with 5 ppm or less.
> ...


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 14, 2013)

Stone said:


> Look at it this way: You are building a house, The timber is the N, the Plaster is the K, the paint is the P. and the nails and fittings is everything else.
> You decide you don't need that extra bedroom so you remove that amount of timber from your order. Do you still need the door knobs and the nails for that room?



Dont need the static fixtures but you still need a constant supply of water, air and electricity for the house to be habitable - even if its not 'growing'.

Put it this way, when cells are not dividing (ie not growing) they still are metabolically active and consume nutrients. All I'm saying is that there are likely to be micros that are required at a minimum level even if NPK are reduced proportionally. Micros may become sequestered, 'de-activated', 'chelated' or otherwise 'lost' in the needed form if not constantly replenished. The amount of micros needed probably isn't a fixed ratio of an NPK element, it may have a floor.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 14, 2013)

Stone said:


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


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> I agree. We are growing for 'perfection' and not survival to enable reproduction.



It seems like looking at lots of in situ pics that wid plants are not sacrificing perfection in the slightest, and generally exceed GH grown plants.


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2013)

Stone said:


> Its simply a fact that well fed plants grow faster and stronger than plants fed half as much.



Myself and many others are not finding that to be "fact" these days.


----------



## Rick (Jun 14, 2013)

Stone said:


> Its simply a fact that well fed plants grow faster and stronger than plants fed half as much.



If that was true we wouldn't all be complaining about slow growth and high mortality all the time. We keep espousing the growing of orchids based on what the environmental regimes are, but are completely hypocritical apparently when it comes to the chemical environment.

Then we all become Monsanto biochemistsoke:


----------



## Stone (Jun 15, 2013)

Rick said:


> If that was true we wouldn't all be complaining about slow growth and high mortality all the time. We keep espousing the growing of orchids based on what the environmental regimes are, but are completely hypocritical apparently when it comes to the chemical environment.
> 
> Then we all become Monsanto biochemistsoke:



I can only go by what I see happening in front of me. I have definitly noticed strong growing paphs like roths and phillip respond to additional feeding. where's the barbatums seem to resent it. One thing is for sure...you can't lump all the species into one feeding program and expect all to do well! A roth and a purpuratum are about as different as a cabbage and a violet


----------



## Stone (Jun 15, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> Dont need the static fixtures but you still need a constant supply of water, air and electricity for the house to be habitable - even if its not 'growing'.
> 
> Put it this way, when cells are not dividing (ie not growing) they still are metabolically active and consume nutrients. All I'm saying is that there are likely to be micros that are required at a minimum level even if NPK are reduced proportionally. Micros may become sequestered, 'de-activated', 'chelated' or otherwise 'lost' in the needed form if not constantly replenished. The amount of micros needed probably isn't a fixed ratio of an NPK element, it may have a floor.



I'm sure that is correct. So now find me something to read:sob:


----------



## Ray (Jun 15, 2013)

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this: concentration x volume = mass. Feed 1 ppm often enough, and the plants get more than enough nutrition.


----------



## Rick (Jun 15, 2013)

Stone said:


> I can only go by what I see happening in front of me. I have definitly noticed strong growing paphs like roths and phillip respond to additional feeding. where's the barbatums seem to resent it. One thing is for sure...you can't lump all the species into one feeding program and expect all to do well! A roth and a purpuratum are about as different as a cabbage and a violet



That's a shift from the basic "more food = more growth" statement from earlier. Actually I think your biggest shifts in feeding rate is due to size and growth rate rather than species.


http://www.firetailorchids.com.au/_pdfs/poole_and_seeley.pdf

You actually brought this article to the table originally. In 3 out of 3 cases there were drops in growth after a point with increasing N. For Cattleya they never went low enough (starting at 50ppm) to determine the best growth rate with N.


----------



## Stone (Jun 16, 2013)

Ray said:


> I don't see what is so hard to understand about this: concentration x volume = mass. Feed 1 ppm often enough, and the plants get more than enough nutrition.



If that were the case you could grow plants aquaponically (with roots submerged) and feed them at 1ppm N and they would grow to their potential. But that dosen't happen because every species can take up N or whatever at a given rate and concentration and if you give less growth slows.


----------



## Stone (Jun 16, 2013)

Rick said:


> > That's a shift from the basic "more food = more growth" statement from earlier.
> 
> 
> The statement more food = more growth is absolutely true.......to a point. All plants have an optimum concentration were they will grow to their full genetic potential (assuming everything else like temp and light etc is also optimal) When any particular element goes above that optimum concentration, growth will begin to decline. Its quite easy to follow in an trial and the big hydroponic producers in Europe all carry out these tests to determine optimal feeding for their crops. They'd be foolish not to. Orchids are no different. But every species will have its own requirements. Aren't we all just argueing about what that optimum (in cultivation) is?
> ...


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 16, 2013)

I think this topic has taken a small side road rather than answer the original question about 'micro' dilution and whether a lower limit exists. The answer seems to be that nobody knows (but there could be).


----------



## Bjorn (Jun 16, 2013)

Wold it not be reasonable to expect that there is such a limit, but that it is not necessarily at the proportions given by fertilizers? What I mean is that the amount of micronutrients may get "diluted away" before the macronutrients get to a similar level? In other words, by simply diluting fertilisers, the restricting factor would not be the concentration of NPK but the concentration that the micros attain.
Just my twocents..


----------



## Ray (Jun 16, 2013)

Stone said:


> If that were the case you could grow plants aquaponically (with roots submerged) and feed them at 1ppm N and they would grow to their potential. But that dosen't happen because every species can take up N or whatever at a given rate and concentration and if you give less growth slows.



OK, you didn't catch my hyperbole....


Ray Barkalow
Sent using Tapatalk


----------

