# Yet another example of "Less is More" with Feeding



## Ray (Apr 8, 2016)

This is Phrag. Will Chantry, moved from flask directly into 3.5" Semi-Hydro pots about 18 months ago. They were watered in with roughly 30 ppm N K-Lite, which was supplemented with 1:250 KelpMax and 1:100 Inocucor garden Solution. Since that time, they have only received RO water, applied via overhead misting 2x/day, in my basement "incubator".

The leaves are a bit mottled, suggesting a bit of nutrient deficiency, but this still managed to grow and bloom. The second image shows the extensive root system, both in the pot and overgrowing it.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 8, 2016)

Yet another example to indicate that orchids get nutrients from the living organisms more so than from dissolved nutrients or decaying organic matter.

You are giving less fertilizer (none) but at the same time keeping the micro organisms alive and well (Inocur) and at the same time supplying amino acids and hormones from the seaweed.

I don't think the plant is getting a lot less nutrients it's just that you are supplying them in a different form than normal fertilizer.

The mottled leaves are probably a result of low Ca and Mg which may need to come from the media or water rather than the organisms.


----------



## Ray (Apr 8, 2016)

The plant is growing in LECA, so the only organic matter would be the plant itself, and the kelp and critters, but they, like the fertilizer, were only supplied once.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 8, 2016)

Don't care about the culture, are they for sale!? :drool:
Yay besseae hybrids!


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Apr 8, 2016)

Culture is everything! oke: 

Before I got to the pot in the picture, I thought it was a wild plant! hahaha.


----------



## Ray (Apr 8, 2016)

NYEric said:


> Don't care about the culture, are they for sale!? :drool:
> Yay besseae hybrids!



Yes, they are. I'm keeping this one, but there are siblings available.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 8, 2016)

Thanks.


----------



## Kawarthapine (Apr 8, 2016)

Ray.

With the low Cdn dollar you should holiday in Ontario this summer.

Perhaps a few bottles of Inocucor and Kelp Max could fall off your trailer as you drive by Peterborough!

Oh well, one can always dream.


----------



## Stone (Apr 9, 2016)

Well to me Ray, I see this plant as being hungry so in this instance less is less IMO.


----------



## Stone (Apr 9, 2016)

gonewild said:


> > Yet another example to indicate that orchids get nutrients from the living organisms more so than from dissolved nutrients or decaying organic matter.
> 
> 
> Not my orchids! I still don't see the reason for starving plants when it's just as easy to feed them well? I'm sorry but I just get the point.
> I have a few starved plants in my shadehouse. They are miserable! You get fewer and smaller flowers, shorter spikes, smaller pale leaves and tiny pseudobulbs so why do it?


----------



## gego (Apr 9, 2016)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Not my orchids! I still don't see the reason for starving plants when it's just as easy to feed them well? I'm sorry but I just get the point.
> ...


----------



## monocotman (Apr 9, 2016)

At the risk of opening up a well worn topic, the point is that nobody sets out to starve their plants. It just happens that low levels of feed at every watering happens to work for some plants. Not all. They are not starved. They grow very well!
It works for Ray, it works for me and it works for Bjorn.
David


----------



## monocotman (Apr 9, 2016)

*Low level feeding*

I suspect that the 'often' in little and often makes up for the fact that feed levels are 'low'.
It certainly worked for me growing in less than ideal conditions indoors.
The performance of all my orchids improved markedly when I went from occasional higher levels of feed to little and often using rain mix aka MSU.
Of course there may be other factors at work here but the overall improvement was so marked that I stuck with it and increased the orchid collection for a few (10-12 ) plants to maybe 40. 
David


----------



## garysan (Apr 9, 2016)

David, I'd like to know (for conparison reasons) what dose and frequency you use the Rain Mix as I've had rather mixed results with it...


----------



## monocotman (Apr 9, 2016)

*Rain mix*

It is not very scientific.
I use the tiny teaspoon provided by Akerne to add one level spoon of the mix in an average bucket at every watering.
It takes the salt pen reading up from about 30 units to around 120.
The tap water reads 300 in comparison.
Beyond that I do not know more. 
Bjorn has more details on ppm and it was discussed in one of the innumerable threads on the subject.
David


----------



## Ray (Apr 9, 2016)

Stone said:


> Well to me Ray, I see this plant as being hungry so in this instance less is less IMO.


There ya go, missing the point again, Mike. (And apparently you're not alone!)

I absolutely agree that this is not the ideal situation. It came about from neglect, not by plan. My point is not that this is "good", but it is an example of how relatively successful these plants can be, even with such poor resources, lending support to the concept that "less is more". "Nothing" is certainly not "more".

My normal pattern is 25-35 ppm N at every watering - and they are probably better referred-to as "floodings" - which can be 3 times a week, supplemented monthly with KelpMax and Inocucor Garden Solution.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2016)

gego said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > Originally Posted by gonewild View Post
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2016)

gego said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, whats the point of raising any living thing if we don't pamper them.
> ...


----------



## gego (Apr 9, 2016)

Its all relative. To say just less or more doesnt mean anything. 30 ppm average everywater 3x a week is not less but may not be optimum if using the right stuff. 
Just a side note, those who can afford use nitrates but back in Asia, this stuff is expensive so they use what is available and cheap like animal poop and thier plants are healthier. 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## gego (Apr 9, 2016)

Somebody already stated this here, feed the critters the right stuff

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## garysan (Apr 9, 2016)

Ray said:


> There ya go, missing the point again, Mike. (And apparently you're not alone!)
> 
> I absolutely agree that this is not the ideal situation. It came about from neglect, not by plan. My point is not that this is "good", but it is an example of how relatively successful these plants can be, even with such poor resources, lending support to the concept that "less is more". "Nothing" is certainly not "more".
> 
> My normal pattern is 25-35 ppm N at every watering - and they are probably better referred-to as "floodings" - which can be 3 times a week, supplemented monthly with KelpMax and Inocucor Garden Solution.



Pretty weak solution then. Their recommendation is a level tiny teaspoon (the blue one they supply) for every 2l water which I was doing but plants seem happier since I stopped. Decided to have a couple of weeks pure rainwater irrigation to flush the pots before going back to 1/2 strength RainMix or changing back to OrchidFocus which TBH, my phrags/paphs seemed happier with.

I'm learning about the correlation between fertiliser levels given and amount of light provided though


----------



## Stone (Apr 10, 2016)

Ray said:


> > There ya go, missing the point again, Mike. (And apparently you're not alone!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Apr 10, 2016)

gonewild said:


> THIS IS A CONVERSATION, NOT ARGUING.....REALLY
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ray (Apr 10, 2016)

WTF is wrong with several of you?

Can't you look at the plant and circumstances, and just think or say "Wow! It's amazing that the plant can do that well with no fertilization.", rather than criticizing what is said, or how it was titled (which was based upon another thread, by the way).


----------



## gonewild (Apr 10, 2016)

Stone said:


> The only ''nutrients'' organisms can ''produce'' is nitrogen fixed from air. All other nutrients MUST come dissolved the water.
> 
> **************************************************



Mike this is just not correct. Research has been published documenting that Lichens and/or the organisms associated with them produce, from atomspheric gases, complex chemical compounds which plants can access and use as nutrients. One paper even measured Calcium and noted that it came from the atmosphere. So just keep an open mind in that all things are not yet known to science.


----------



## Stone (Apr 10, 2016)

gonewild said:


> Mike this is just not correct. Research has been published documenting that Lichens and/or the organisms associated with them produce, from atomspheric gases, complex chemical compounds which plants can access and use as nutrients. One paper even measured Calcium and noted that it came from the atmosphere. So just keep an open mind in that all things are not yet known to science.



Ok, so calcium could only come as a mineral solid not a gas. probably dust in the atmosphere. The other gases, I don't know anything about. I would like to see that.
I'm well aware that science has no clue about many natural systems and I do have an open mind. In the end though it is all just speculation about a subject which has nothing to do with orchid cultivation.


----------



## Stone (Apr 10, 2016)

Ray said:


> > WTF is wrong with several of you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gego (Apr 11, 2016)

Hahaha, I saw two roth that just got AM awards today in Sacramento Orchid Show. I didnt have a camera, hoping Troy will post. One got 89 points. Five huge very dark flowers, first bloom. The leaves were a meter in span, humungous plant. I checl with Dave the owner of Paph Paradise, he said the plants were heavily fed. I can see really thick residue of salt on the leaves, looks urea to me. Very thick amd wide leaves, the stem is huge. If its not for the pinch, it would have gotten FCC

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 11, 2016)

I see I have been mentioned, so here is my experience; Nice phrag btw Ray 

I used to feed at 3-400ppm TDS at every watering in 2013. But stopped because many of my plants succumbed to rot and I lost some very valuable plants I had had for a long time. But except for the rot, the plants grew very well.

After that I have gradually reduced feeding until I have now reached a level of approximately 100ppm TDS (including whats in the water) 15-20ppm N.
This has not reduced the growth rate, but has reduced the rot. Now the plants have become more healthy as far as I can judge without showing signs of starvation.

Amongst other things to prove that is my kolopakingii that flowered earlier this year, and which has grown an almost mature new shoot in 6months time, is on the low fertiliser diet.
I do also see other effects like increased rate of multiple blooms, but that could be due to use of kelp and the composition of the fertiliser.

On the contrary......During the winter months I stopped fertilisation entirely. That was noticeable. So at such low fertiliser additions, better feed - always.

The reason for using low fertiliser levels is not the growth, it's the plant health.

I do also see other things like an increased rate of multiple buds, that could be due to other things, but low fertiliser levels have not prevented it.


----------



## troy (Apr 11, 2016)

I often wandered if the uptake of too much good stuff could cause a problem....?


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 11, 2016)

Wasn't there a docu called 'supersize me'?


----------



## gego (Apr 11, 2016)

Bjorn, do you compensate for the almost non-existent trace elements in such a low ppm assuming you are using any commercial formula?

BTW, kelp maybe a source of hormones to some but it is still an organic fert with lots of potassium and amino acids.

Thanks


----------



## gonewild (Apr 11, 2016)

Stone said:


> Ok, so calcium could only come as a mineral solid not a gas. probably dust in the atmosphere. The other gases, I don't know anything about. I would like to see that.



No not from dust. It was from atmospheric gas. But it also was not that Ca was produced as a single element. The Ca was within a chemical compound excreted from the Lichen. The research did not go as far as knowing positive if plants could access the Ca from the compound but it was suggested as a point of further research.
If you search google enough and read the lichen research you see these little new possibilities. If I remember right the research was done in Australia. Maybe you should ask your neighbor. oke:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 11, 2016)

troy said:


> I often wandered if the uptake of too much good stuff could cause a problem....?



Yes it does. Potassium is one of them. That is why Bjorn sees less rot after he reduced his nutrient levels. but the excess nutrients is not just "how much the fertilizer contains" it is a combination of the environmental conditions surrounding the plant. 

Go ahead and yell at me!


----------



## Stone (Apr 11, 2016)

gonewild said:


> Yes it does. Potassium is one of them. That is why Bjorn sees less rot after he reduced his nutrient levels. but the excess nutrients is not just "how much the fertilizer contains" it is a combination of the environmental conditions surrounding the plant.
> 
> Go ahead and yell at me!



Yes K is one of them and so is N and P and Ca and Mg and Fe and B and.......

If we give an amount of fertilizer to a plant which in optimum growing conditions would give maximum growth, all is well and as long as that fertilizer formulation and concentration is optimum for that plant.
The problem is that that same fertilizer may indeed cause problems if the growing conditions are not also optimal. 

For example, the air movement in a green house is pitiful compared to the outside. Most disease problems are caused by that, not too much fertilizer. The temperature may be too low or too high or not vary enough. The light levels may be too low or too high. The hours of light or even the spectrum may not be right. The water may contain contaminants. The media may give adverse reactions etc etc. It's is almost impossible to supply optimum growing conditions. However when we can we can also give optimum fertilizer and see the results.

The reason Bjorn is seeing fewer disease problems is not only because of the lighter fertilizer applications but also because his growing conditions are not perfect. Less N makes plants ''harder'' and less susceptible.

So I guess we agree Lance...go figure!


----------



## gonewild (Apr 11, 2016)

Stone said:


> So I guess we agree Lance...go figure!



Well let's work on that problem. :wink:


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 12, 2016)

gego said:


> Bjorn, do you compensate for the almost non-existent trace elements in such a low ppm assuming you are using any commercial formula?
> 
> BTW, kelp maybe a source of hormones to some but it is still an organic fert with lots of potassium and amino acids.
> 
> Thanks



I make my own fertiliser with higher (and different proportions) levels of micros. Agree that with commercial fertilisers you might end up with micros-deficiency symptoms.
Kelp is a wonderful fertiliser containing most that the plants need. However I am uncertain about the effect of overdoing kelp additions, crippled flowers have been suggested as one result. Someone that wants to test?:evil:


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 12, 2016)

Stone said:


> The reason Bjorn is seeing fewer disease problems is not only because of the lighter fertilizer applications but also because his growing conditions are not perfect. Less N makes plants ''harder'' and less susceptible.



Mike, I am not following you here, are you indicating that some of us have perfect conditions?

Just to put it straight; In my perception, fertiliser and most of those other remedies people use like physan, fungicide etc. etc. interfere with the microbial life in the pots and the environment of the growth area. Loss of these micro-organisms is one important vector for decease.

That is why I have reduced fertiliser level, spraying of fungicides is kept at a minimum and I have never, ever, used stuff like Physan. As a consequence the interior of the house is overgrown by algae and lichen together with moss and ferns. There is even a small population of toads there as well as the odd visit by snakes (I am not kidding) But if you are after tidyness, it looks like ****. Frankly.
But the plants like it and I am convinced that if it is possible to keep a good Balance in the population of the micro-organisms, much can be gained.


----------



## gego (Apr 12, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> I make my own fertiliser with higher (and different proportions) levels of micros. Agree that with commercial fertilisers you might end up with micros-deficiency symptoms.
> Kelp is a wonderful fertiliser containing most that the plants need. However I am uncertain about the effect of overdoing kelp additions, crippled flowers have been suggested as one result. Someone that wants to test?:evil:



That's what I thought.

I use kelp too, the cheap version. Actually I like the results of my organic fert tests. It smells bad but I use it pretty weak. With urea to feed the critters, this aproach works for me and less salt to worry about.

I'm afraid that some may try the low ppm strategy with commercial RO/fert and may end up unsuccesful. Just a heads up.


----------



## Helene (Apr 12, 2016)

I think he has a point. Less is sometimes more. 
For an advanced grower with experience it might not be that interesting, the point often being the search for the optimal nutrition and light levels- to make the plant shine the best it can.

But its an important thing for beginners to see. You dont need much to get a plant to stay alive and be somewhat happy. 
I read threads all over the place with people starting with plants, and needing advice for all sorts of stuff to give it. And if there is issues with other things in the environment it can easily start a circle of issues. Plant doesnt look happy- I need more chemicals., or nutrition or desinfecting stuff. 

Sometimes less is more, and for beginners maybe its better to spend time reading on the natural environment of the plant. Make sure you can make an environment the plant is somewhat happy in- and then make it thrive even better- with the correct amount of nutrition. And for those really advanced- that might even be making their own nutrition, different for different plants. And again- a happy and healthy plant that has its "own environment" going on in the rootsystem, will probably have a better uptake of the micronutrition aswell. No need to feed a plant that cant make any use of it. 

I didnt have much to give my plants before, so I started reading instead. And since I dont have physan and stuff like that- I washed my seedlings with water, I let them dry a bit. I add a tiny amount of a bio nutrition that seems to make good environment in the roots. And I try to keep it simple, let them do their thing, just trying to compensate for nature- and givinf them a chance to grow strong.

And yeah- now I do use fertilizer, but I like to keep it really low, and more often. 

I do try to keep the environment in the pots, though. Mostly because I dont have a greenhouse, and I think my hubby wouldnt appreciate if our living-room started growing algae or moss

Bjørn: lol, you have made your greenhouse into a big terrarium it sounds like 

Kelp- hmm, maybe a walk on the beach some day. But it smells awful when cooking in the sun, smelly tea. 

Well, my best advice: do whatever works for you


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 12, 2016)

Helene, its not Kelp, its Kelp-extract, or Juice if you like. Smells a bit like the breeze on a Beach not offensive at all, rather pleasant in my opinion.


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 12, 2016)

And btw. my greenhouse is more like a jungle than a terrarium. It is getting difficult to get around in there.:viking:


----------



## Helene (Apr 12, 2016)

I know- but I've read that if you're gonna make kelp-tea to use as extract it smells while "cooking" Never tried to make though- besides, I would probably mess up something. (The reason for reading about that was to see if I could make something that would give me some of the benefits of the kelp- it contains more than 60 different goodies) Kinda like diy kelp-tea.

Lol- welcome to the jungle- up in the cold north Thats kinda awesome though

Edit: I think I might sound a bit dumber when I write in another language than norwegian Harder to explain


----------



## Ray (Apr 12, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> ?..However I am uncertain about the effect of overdoing kelp additions, crippled flowers have been suggested as one result. Someone that wants to test?:evil:




I can tell you from first-hand experience that crippled flowers are, indeed, a result of overexposure to auxins.

Forgetting "less is more" for a moment, you should all know that my longtime philosophy is "nothing exceeds like excess", so several years ago I tried one tablespoon per gallon of K-L-N at every watering, and after a few months, deformities occurred in phalaenopsis. Granted that was a very large dose, in addition to frequency.

More recently, I tried the same thing with KelpMax, where one tablespoon per gallon is the preferred dose, but I applied it at every watering for a month, and I saw deformities in oncidiums and paphs.

Fortunately, it is quickly reversible, and in all cases, the plants bloomed normally the next time around, once the OD was stopped. It's apparently a "near term" affect, too, as in the KelpMax case, plants that were earlier in spike that fully bloomed a few weeks later, were unaffected.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 12, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> However I am uncertain about the effect of overdoing kelp additions, crippled flowers have been suggested as one result. Someone that wants to test?:evil:



There have been plenty of tests of hormone excess on plants and it does very often result is deformed flowers and growth irregularities.


----------



## gego (Apr 12, 2016)

Helene said:


> I think he has a point. Less is sometimes more.
> For an advanced grower with experience it might not be that interesting, the point often being the search for the optimal nutrition and light levels- to make the plant shine the best it can.
> 
> But its an important thing for beginners to see. You dont need much to get a plant to stay alive and be somewhat happy.
> ...



Be careful though when you just say less, that can be taken literally and depending on a person's media, he /she might end up having micro nutrients deficiency, which is quite hard to fix after the fact. These guys are saying less to NPK but they also supplement for the other important stuff which is usually not mentioned in this kind of topic.

If one use very low ppm but apply it every watering that is just the same as applying the total of those fert at one time but less frequently. If one has the equipment to do this automatically then the low ppm every watering is a better practice. If one is a sprayer and do this mix every watering this might not be the way to go.

Now looking at Ray's application of 1TBSP/gal, now I can relate to his "less is more" approach.


----------



## Stone (Apr 12, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> > Mike, I am not following you here, are you indicating that some of us have perfect conditions?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 13, 2016)

Yes it is imprecise, and could probably have been expressed in a better way.

No not mycorrhizae as such (although it could be part of it) but any vigorous population of beneficial (or harmless) micro-organisms will suppress other microbes. If you have a vigorous population of beneficial microbes, then the harmful will have a tougher time in multiplying and cause problems to you. That is the priciple behind stuf like inocucor. Of course if you spray physan, you kill off the harmless population and leaves the door open for pathogens.

It is probably not so much the type, but that there is enough beneficial organisms present that will suppress pathogens.


----------



## myxodex (Apr 13, 2016)

Maybe it would be interesting to collect some figures for N feeding rates here. 

I do get the less is more idea, and if approx 20 ppm N with every watering is low then I'm in the low camp, but surely we cannot expect to carry on diluting our feeding rates and expect to see a continous improvement. There must be a range that finds a compromise between the safety of less and the dangers of too much. There is a theoretical argument for a lower end to this range at about 30 ppm N as NO3. I'd thought about posting this in a previous thread but to be honest it is rather technical and I'm not sure how much I believe in it either, ... but it does offer a different way of thinking about plant nutrition that might just about be worth bearing in mind, anyway here goes, ...

It is all to do with the cost of nutrient acquisition. We could think of this in units of glucose produced by photosynthesis, how many units go to respiration to cover the energy costs of the plant and how many to supply the carbon backbones of the organic building blocks of new plant biomass. I was surprised to learn that the estimates of the cost of nutrient uptake to the plant range from 20 - 50 % of it's total energy budget, ... thats a lot !

Before I give the rational for 30 ppm NO3 as a lower limit, a little digression into the extremes of too much, just to lay out a broader perspective. Plants under significant stress don't grow well. It is well known that stressed plants exhibit crazy high respiration rates, and indeed, abnormal respiration rates have been used as a measure of stress (along with ethylene emission). Very high nutrient levels can cause stress, but we're talking way above that which anyone here is likely to use. Let me give an example, the plant tissue culture medium Murashige and Skoog at half strength, as used for orchid propagation, has a total N over 400 ppm (140 as NH4 and 275 as NO3), the K comes in at 470 ppm (as K2O). Not all orchid seedlings will grow on this medium, but many will and it is widely used. This medium also has a high sucrose concentration without which the plants would not survive, irrespective of their photosynthetic capacity. It has been said by one worker in plant tissue culture that ..." they grow under sugar mitigated stress ". When plants are exposed to high nutrient levels they are being force fed, i.e. they cannot stop the influx of ions and they use a lot of ATP pumping K+, NH4+ and H+ out of the cells to restore normal physiological concentrations and to reset the membrane potential, and this is the cause of most of this stress related respiration. If they don't have a lot of surplus glucose to burn up they are in trouble.

The concentration of nutrient ions in the root zone has an impact on the cost of their uptake, there is a thermodynamic limit that evolution has had to work around. The result is that for each of the macronutrient mineral ions there are at least two, if not three or more genes for transporter proteins. The high affinity transporters (HATS - active uptake) are used when nutrient levels are low, and low affinity ion channels (LATS - passive uptake) when nutrients are abundant. HATS uptake at low concentration is more expensive than LATS, ... but, ... it is not that clear cut because LATS isn't cost free either (dont be misled by the "passive uptake" label) . The plants under high feeding regime are doing LATS uptake, the influx of cations, K+, NH4+ causes membrane depolarisation and the root cells are wired up to correct this by pumping out H+ to compensate the charge balance and so restore the membrane potential. This uses ATP, and hence glucose. If they are also taking up NO3 at the same time the depolarisation is less and so this cost is partly offset. On the other hand at low concentrations, i.e. HATS uptake, there is a fixed cost that can't be offset, one molecule of ATP for each nutrient ion taken up. The thing about HATS transporters is that plants regulate how many of these they make. If for example the K is very low, they make lot more K-HATS transporters in an attempt to meet the K demand. So there is a significant extra synthetic cost here on top of the 1 ATP per K+. If you increase the K they make less and so on. This is why our plants are so adaptable, they adjust to our feeding regime as best they can, but this adaptability has an extra cost at very low and very high feeding rates, so less glucose goes into building new plant and more into respiration. 

So is there a sweet spot, or an optimal range at which we can minimise the number of units of glucose used to take up our feed ? I suggest at the lower end of the LATS range, at least for NO3. So at what concentration does HATS transport give way to LATS transport ... it's between 1 and 2 mM for most ions; for the cations NH4+ and K+ it's just over 1 mM and for the anions NO3- and PO4-- it's nearer 2 mM. Translated to ppm of N as NO3 this comes to 28 ppm, for N as NH4 it's bit over 14 ppm. For K (as K2O) it's 47 ppm and for P (as P2O5) it's about 71 ppm. Possibly with K, but more especially with P, these high levels would be inviting other problems, but given that N is the nutrient with the highest demand, feeding at 30 ppm N as NO3 puts NO3 into the lower end of the passive uptake range. In a previous thread Brabantia reported a big improvement in growth with a change from 20 ppm N to 40 ppm N, I assume the fert was mainly N as NO3, then this increase neatly crosses the threshold for passive uptake of NO3 with a bit to spare.

The curious thing with this result is that I seem to remember quite a few folk here are feeding in the 30 - 50 ppm N range.


----------



## gego (Apr 13, 2016)

Very interesting. I like stuff like this.

Questions:

For 30-50 N, what percent is NH4?

Should this concentration be available to the plant, (roots and leaves) everyday during the growing period?

Is this an average daily intake?

I can see non-polarization is important here, the suggested supply of P could be for that reason, could we sub some of the P with something else?

This is good stuff.


----------



## gego (Apr 13, 2016)

No takers here Myxodex. I think you scared them with those amount of K and P you mentioned. LOL. It just a discussion.

But I like your approach in using efficiency and balancing charges. It's the kind of stuff engineers can relate better. I was actually intrigued about these two topics and researched about them. There's this paper/study I found about balancing charges on the roots/plant. Basically saying cations and anions have to be balanced in the plant or the plant will take up these ions available to it with some preference to balance the charges. I have seen this topic here but they only touched the N uptake, maybe I haven't seen them yet, but I asked myself, what's in exchange to K uptake or NH4 or Ca or Mg to balance the charges? It can't be NO3 all the time or the plant will accumulate so much NO3. There's got to be a different anion source/s other than P, NO3 and S to balance the cations.

This questions I have led me to organic fert.
Ok, I think I'm done. Sorry for hijacking your topic Ray.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 13, 2016)

gego said:


> No takers here Myxodex. I think you scared them with those amount of K and P you mentioned. LOL. It just a discussion.



Not scared. It's a lot of info that needs thought before comment.
But my first thought is you cant really come up with a valid set of numbers because of all the variables possible in the growing environment. And you cant use data from soil growing plants on epiphytic orchids... At least I dont think so.


----------



## Ray (Apr 13, 2016)

The information sounds very logical, and I really like that. Whether they are factual, I don't know, but as it was stated as being so, and I have no knowledge or information that may contradict that, I'm OK to accept it at face value, until we learn something better.

Lance is right that the adaptability of the plants and the variables of cultural parameters make it a pretty tough thing to nail anything down, but it's great for discussion.

Here, where folks are all too quick to criticize, I will simply say "Thanks, Myx!"


----------



## gego (Apr 14, 2016)

gonewild said:


> Not scared. It's a lot of info that needs thought before comment.
> But my first thought is you cant really come up with a valid set of numbers because of all the variables possible in the growing environment. And you cant use data from soil growing plants on epiphytic orchids... At least I dont think so.



I usually assume other factors to be ideal so I can concentrate understanding how the numbers were obtained. For me, the principle behind it is more important than the numbers. One can get his/her numbers by factoring in his/her unique conditions after obtaining the ideal number.

If this is assumed to be optimal, then this range has to be available to the plants 24/7. This means every watering and to be consistent, leaching is done first to avoid build up.

Now let's factor in reality, one is media, if one is using bark then one needs to budget extra N and the N-grabbing critters. The efficiency and preference of the roots to take up the kind of N must also be factored in. The latter I think is still not well undestood. He laid it out but did not exactly elaborate why P and NO3 were selected to balance the cations and K as the preferred cation. This is what got my attention. 

You can factor in the environmental conditions and you get your number.


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 14, 2016)

Very interesting Myxo, 
I do also like your approach, but think that it is too easy to focus on one thing and forget the others. Translated, that means if we focus on growth, we may lose on health. Just as an example: fat people may utilise food better than slim people but are not necessarily healthier (although they can be) 
The same applies to plants, a maximum nutrient uptake may give the biggest plants, but they may suffer healthwise. The rate of growth is the easiest to measure though, so most people go for that.
Plant health and immune system is a topic that is only partly understood, but it depends on a range of factors. One of them is the condition of the epidermis, how easy is it for a pathogen to enter and establish? Secondly if it enters, how well is the immune system prepared to be able to counter-strike the attack? 
Here the nutrient uptake plays a role. First of all, if the growth is too fast, the epidermis normally lags behind in the hardening or toughening. The same happens if there is a lack of some more uncommon nutrients, Silicon is the most important here. to my knowledge almost no fertilisers contain silicon. In nature, some Silicon is normally available as dissolved monosilicic acid (comes from decaying plants matter, not sand etc.)
This is normally not so in orchid growing. Here we repot as soon as there is a chance of liberating (decaying compost) some dissolved silica
The Silicon strengthens the epidermis and participate in the internal production of chemicals that is supposed to defeat the invading pathogen. Not always sucessful, but less sucessful if the conditions are sub-optimal.

Back to nutrition and N level. I am convinced that the healthiest plants are obtained if their conditions resemble what they have been adapted to in nature. Or as close as possible to that.
Looking at pictures of paphiopedilums in nature, particularly their habitat and other plants, there is one thing that strikes one. Namely that many Paphs grow in an environment poor in nutrients. Typical place is with moss and sedges in a water seepage, and if the water is analysed, it may contain a lot of different things - but is more often than not very poor in essential nutrients like N.

In pot culture, with restricted roots etc. I would assume that the plants need more nutrients than in nature, but perhaps less than we think?


----------



## Helene (Apr 14, 2016)

Thats the reason why I bought ProTekt Aint getting it from decayed media in my house
It helps with the uptake of some micronutritions I believe. (Lol, gotta do some more reading before I comment any further on these things.)

I like this thread, so many things to go do a search and read more about.
Thanks


----------



## gego (Apr 14, 2016)

Hahaha I'm worst. I have lots of questions from reading. Some I say them here to spark conversation. Pick some brains. Just be vigilant with this plants because they will show signs when they 're not happy 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## naoki (Apr 14, 2016)

Thank you, Tim, for interesting way to look at this. I'll need to learn more about the actual mechanisms of uptake (Marschner's book seems to have good review about this topic).

Bjorn, obesity in plants could be interesting. It does an appeal from animal centric view, but I wonder if the animal logic applies to plants. Most of the time, people talk about nutrient deficiency and susceptibility to disease. I haven't seen many info about this topic. Toxicity is studied, but without going to extreme, are plants growing slower really healthy? In nature with lots of unpredictability and seasonal change, growing as fast as possible is not a good idea. They can't support themselves to go over the tough time (dry spell, cold temp etc). So it is a part of the reasons why epiphytes or succulent grow slow.

I'm not sure if epidermis is influenced by the growth rate, though. But there is no doubt that root:shoot ratio is influenced by the level of fertilization (and watering).

Also, with regard to the mineral nutrition, the last factor you mentioned (limited space in pot) seems to be a big deal to me. In most of the paphs studied in the nature has extensive association with mycorrhizal fungi. In the pots, they have much less association (you can still isolate mycorrhizal fungi from greenhouse cultivated plants). In some plants, the fungi can dramatically increase the soil contact area. In 1 cubic cm of soil, there may be only a couple cm of roots (and root hairs), but there could be 50m of hyphae! So they may be growing in nutrient poor environment, but overall uptake may not be as low as you think from looking at the soil analysis or stem-flow data. In other words, natural condition may be a good starting point, but it may not be the best as Mike has been saying.

I do get impressed by Ray's plant, so thank you for posting this, Ray. Almost no mineral nutrients provided, and it's in inorganic media. Then it flowered in 18 months from the flask. It seems to be almost impossible! But this tells us that orchids are probably well buffered in terms of mineral nutrients, much more than temperature tolerance (of some orchids). I don't see lots of difference by changing fertilization scheme, but I see drastic effects in temperature change at the time scale of 1-2 months. Well, this is probably obvious to many, but it is related to Mike and Bjorn's comments that the plants are not in the optimum condition: a deviation in a couple degrees of temperature makes the growth slower and mineral nutrients aren't the limiting factors in many cases.


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 15, 2016)

You may be right naoki, obesity in plants does sound strange, and looking at it from that perspective....? Nevertheless my observations can be condensed into:
1) they grow just as fast (or faster?) with low fertiliser levels(e.g. 20ppm N) than with higher nutrient levels (e.g. 100ppm N) and producing just as much - or more biomass
2) seemingly the rate of decease incidents has been reduced. 
Of course this does not necessarily have to do with the fertiliser level, since so many other things have changed in parallell - it could be due to other factors like availability/non-availability of some micro-nutrients.
The latter is examplified by the fact that leaf-analyses mostly show rather high sodium levels, sometimes similar to P2O5, but nobody fertilises with it. Probably since its always there? But what if it is not?
just a thought:evil:


----------



## UweM (Apr 15, 2016)

sodium - a good indication...

30 years ago I visited the natural location of Paph. niveum on the Langkawii Islands.

Some niveums grew only 1 to 2 meters above the water surface directly on the rocks and have been regularly humidified by seawater (the same as godefroyae): 10710 ppm Na, 1290 ppm Mg, 415 ppm ca, 385 ppm K (analyzes from the internet).

But most of the Paphs. are growing at the crest of the island in a yellowish friable loam.
I took a soil sample with to allow them to analyze:

162 ppm N, 28 ppm P, 101 ppm K, 3255 ppm Ca, 301 ppm Mg and *42 ppm Na*.

A chemically preloaded orchids friend gave his 4 niveum additional sodium - unfortunately I never asked him in what concentration.

His niveums had a leafspan about 40 cm and the inflorescence was 40 cm long - the flower had normal size...


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 15, 2016)

Perhaps this one is of interest?
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37789&highlight=sodium


----------



## gego (Apr 15, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> You may be right naoki, obesity in plants does sound strange, and looking at it from that perspective....? Nevertheless my observations can be condensed into:
> 1) they grow just as fast (or faster?) with low fertiliser levels(e.g. 20ppm N) than with higher nutrient levels (e.g. 100ppm N) and producing just as much - or more biomass
> 2) seemingly the rate of decease incidents has been reduced.
> Of course this does not necessarily have to do with the fertiliser level, since so many other things have changed in parallell - it could be due to other factors like availability/non-availability of some micro-nutrients.
> ...



I've read that plants pick up Na if K is not sufficient. This principle about balanced charges in the cells of the plant is really something we need to look deeper and understand. That cations should balance with anions to have zero potential in the cells of a plant. I believe this is very important. Seems like plants is always under stress if this condition is not met. Like if K is limited, another cation should fill up its place but it seems like Na is the preferred replacement, why? Is it the # of electrons? protons?


----------



## orcoholic (Apr 15, 2016)

I know I'm late to the party here, and I certainly don't get all the scientific, engineering stuff, but...

How can "less be more" when the author of the thread - Ray - describes the orchid as undernourished with mottled leaves.

Shouldn't the title be something like "Less is enough if you want to grow substandard orchids"?


----------



## naoki (Apr 15, 2016)

I mentioned this in another thread, but I wonder if some Paphs can substitute K with Na. But something is in leaf analysis doesn't mean it is great. Some plants accumulate toxic heavy metals in their vacuoles in order to be tolerant of the heavy metal.

Copy and paste from: http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15339&page=7

here is a bit of info from the time when I looked into this info (mostly from Marschner's). There are some plants which accumulate Na in leaves (called natrophiles), but I don't know if there is any orchids which does this. Na is essential for some halophyte (plants growing in brackish area), and beneficial for some.
1. Relatively recently, it's been shown that Na can enhance C4 plants growth (but no orchids are C4).
2. Also if K is limited, some plants (not all plants) can substitute K with Na. So in these plants, leaf analysis can show negative correlation between K and Na. But this doesn't mean that K will cause Na deficiency.
3. Then it was shown that some plants supplied with Na can close the stomata quicker than plants with only K. K is important in controlling the stomata. This indicates that Na could be beneficial in the environment where there is irregular rain fall (and plants experience sudden drought). So there is a possibility that Na could be beneficial for some epiphytes.


----------



## Ray (Apr 15, 2016)

orcoholic said:


> I know I'm late to the party here, and I certainly don't get all the scientific, engineering stuff, but...
> 
> How can "less be more" when the author of the thread - Ray - describes the orchid as undernourished with mottled leaves.
> 
> Shouldn't the title be something like "Less is enough if you want to grow substandard orchids"?




Well... Yes you are "late to the party", and apparently haven't read the entire thread thoroughly. However, my years of growing experience led me to state things less clearly than I intended.

There was another thread entitled "Less is More", that proposed that low doses of nutrition were advantageous to high doses. Since I started applying that to my culture, some 5 years ago, I have seen some significant advances in the vitality of my plants.

Then this phrag had the gall to bloom with essentially NO nutrition, which is taking "less" to extreme. 

The fact that it did, while plants that I have personally overfed - taking others' advice without evaluating it myself - would not, suggested that the "less is more" concept has validity. No where did I intend to say that "zero is more", but folks want to take things at face value, without thorough evaluation, and I apparently did not do enough to prevent that.


----------

