# Culture document



## reivilos (Jan 25, 2013)

Found this interesting document yesterday. I don't know if it's already been posted by the author.
http://eurobodalla.org.au/fileadmin...012/Paphiopedilum_culture_and_propagation.pdf


----------



## reivilos (Jan 25, 2013)

http://eurobodalla.org.au/fileadmin...012/In-Vitro_Cultivation_of_Paphiopedilum.pdf


----------



## Brabantia (Jan 25, 2013)

Thank you to inform us, very useful document.


----------



## reivilos (Jan 25, 2013)

http://eurobodalla.org.au/fileadmin...d/Perth_2012/Orchid_growing_substrates_01.pdf


----------



## reivilos (Jan 25, 2013)

Roth, I hope you don't mind.


----------



## Rick (Jan 25, 2013)

He's getting there.:clap:

Xavier I can't wait to show you the pic of my mastersianum in flower just about to come up on 3 years out of flask.


----------



## JeanLux (Jan 26, 2013)

Thanks a lot for the link, and thanks to Xavier !!!! Jean


----------



## paphioboy (Jan 26, 2013)

Extremely interesting. Thanks for sharing and thanks to X for writing this...


----------



## dodidoki (Jan 26, 2013)

Many thanks , Reivilos for the link, and many thanks, Xavier for the document. Exeptionally excellent work!

Xavier, you wrote you have a good friend in south France who succesfully grow wentworthianums and bougainvilleanums for many years.

My question: has he tried with pollination and breeding these species? If yes, how about success?
Others: if he has a little time could you be so kind to ask him for posting few pics about your plants?

Many thanks: Istvan

P.S.: you wrote that he grow these plants roots and shaphum mix. I have only zieckianum but think it needs similar culture and best way to grow it in sphagnum with living fern covered by semitransparent pot to keep humidoty below 90% around the plant.


----------



## Brabantia (Jan 26, 2013)

I just see now the pdf on the potting media. It is very interesting. Xavier is able of sharing very well his knowledge. Thank you Xavier !!


----------



## JeanLux (Jan 26, 2013)

Very interesting intro of the paph culture part, pessimistic with a conclusive statement that is, I am afraid ,true !!

=> Whether in the wild or in cultivation, it is very clear that eventually most orchid species will be unknown to future generations except by today’s pictures and books. There is no argument against that on the long term. <==

Jean


----------



## atlantis (Jan 26, 2013)

Thank you so much for sharing this info.


----------



## biothanasis (Jan 26, 2013)

Very informative documents!!!! Thank you very much!


----------



## Paul (Jan 27, 2013)

Well, quite interesting, but there are some things that are only suppositions (about MSU formula for example). And to tell the truth, I have to see his plants grown for years before I can say "thank you for your cultural advises". there's nothing new for me by the way... 


the flasking methode is interesting! thank you for that!


----------



## Brabantia (Jan 27, 2013)

Paul said:


> Well, quite interesting, but there are some things that are only suppositions (about MSU formula for example). And to tell the truth, I have to see his plants grown for years before I can say "thank you for your cultural advises". there's nothing new for me by the way...
> the flasking methode is interesting! thank you for that!



Both puplications of Xavier have the merit to have collected in two articles all which it is necessary to know to well cultivate orchids. It is preferable not to have to look here and there for the informations.


----------



## Rick (Jan 27, 2013)

Paul said:


> there's nothing new for me by the way...



A little bit Paul.

Xavier has been posting for years with updates on Paph culture, so much is the same as what has been discussed on this site for years.

Early in the text he states that the problem with cultured paphs is related to nutrition.

A bit later it says that toxicity is not an issue (with relation to potting mixes/feeding), apparently not feeling that nutrients can cause "toxicity" by definition.

He mentions the low K feeding as a US phenomena, but really doesn't get the reasoning correct. He neither critiques it as significant or not.

Then his new feeding regime is a hybrid of his old (high K feeding) and a new low K system. "Every 3 months I use a simple tank mix of 300mg of calcium nitrate and 200mg ammonium nitrate, with 5mg of boric acid as a drench". Although he insists its not to get any more calcium and less potassium into the plants.

He still likes a lot of urea/ammonia, and is heavily invested in a calcium/boron theory (micronutrients in general). (although I will agree that calcium metabolism in virtually all organisms is partially linked to boron). Given some of the high alkalinity waters available to his growing conditions it could work for him.


----------



## Stone (Jan 27, 2013)

From my experience in growing plants over the years, and apart from some of Xavier's more ''unusual references'', I would agree with most of what he says. Except the pH quote of 5.7-6 is a bit narrow to me. I would say 5.7 to 6.8 would be quite workable for most species. I also agree with the 50/50 nitrate/ammonium N for orchids if not all plants when specific species data is unavailable.


----------



## NYEric (Jan 28, 2013)

Thanks for sharing, something to read later.


----------



## Roth (Jan 29, 2013)

Just in a hurry, it is working time nonstop...



Rick said:


> A little bit Paul.
> 
> A bit later it says that toxicity is not an issue (with relation to potting mixes/feeding), apparently not feeling that nutrients can cause "toxicity" by definition.



Absolutely, because I have seen only few cases of true toxicity, proven by leaf analysis, which would mean the analysis result exceed the norms. So far sodium, boron, manganese ( in one US bark source) come to mind.

As for potassium, the figures from the wild and from culture are pretty constant, and nowhere near any toxicity. There are no documented cases of potassium toxicity in any lab that processed analysis of orchids. So we cannot speak about toxicity. Deficiencies are plentiful, on the other side.

Now, an IMBALANCE would be something different, which means there is a lack somewhere else of something else, which would make the plant sick. 

One example would be nitrate. Nitrate can be highly toxic to the plants in minute amounts if the plant lacks molybdenum. Even 20ppm of nitrate in the feeding can make a chlorosis becomes much more severe if the plants is lacking molybdenum.

The same, if the plant is deprived of any iron, manganese, zinc and copper, with no supplementation at all, even 0.1ppm of iron will induce a very severe chlorosis and necrosis. it is not 'iron toxicity', it is in fact the imbalance of iron, zinc, manganese and copper together.



> He mentions the low K feeding as a US phenomena, but really doesn't get the reasoning correct. He neither critiques it as significant or not.



I have on hand the analysis of quite a lot of growers, some pristine ones for even pot plant phalaenopsis, and so far there has never been any potassium toxicity ever reported, in terms of quantity in the analysis. So for me, potassium toxicity might exist possibly, but it has never been found, and in fact for the low K fertilizer, that would be interesting to have true foliar analysis, etc... to see if there is really a potassium toxicity problem, which would be unheard of.

I would be more scared by a potassium deficiency, because it is a sudden collapse of the plant, and once the potassium is moved out of the old tissues, there is no way to restore older plant parts content when they are too old ( 2-3 years old), which means one could loose many old bulbs at once.

Now, and that's another point, there are couples, like potassium/sodium or calcium/magnesium, and if there is an imbalance ( let's say the calcium:magnesium in the leaves is at a 1:1 ratio), then that's a mess.



> Then his new feeding regime is a hybrid of his old (high K feeding) and a new low K system. "Every 3 months I use a simple tank mix of 300mg of calcium nitrate and 200mg ammonium nitrate, with 5mg of boric acid as a drench". Although he insists its not to get any more calcium and less potassium into the plants.



Not at all a low K system in fact, I use the tank mix once every 3 months, so once every 50 waterings, it's negligible. It is not a low k formulation, but the combination of those three is required to supplement boron without any local phytotoxicity risk, the calcium + boron is safe on the new tender growth, and the ammonium nitrate is there to avoid a pH increase from the calcium nitrate. It is a proven way to supplement boron safely.

So far it does not get any less potassium in the plants, I use 49 times the standard feeding scheme, and once the boron, let's say it is negligible.



> He still likes a lot of urea/ammonia, and is heavily invested in a calcium/boron theory (micronutrients in general). (although I will agree that calcium metabolism in virtually all organisms is partially linked to boron). Given some of the high alkalinity waters available to his growing conditions it could work for him.



I do not like a lot of urea and ammonium, but the plant do. If you ask Floricultura ( and they have plants that are 20-30 years old, motherplants, including quite a lot of species...), they still like it. The phals growers, all the successful ones use ammonium and urea ( and none is using the MSU). 

The same for the MSU or high calcium and magnesium fertilizer, many careful studies ( one of the most extensive being the 1996 Van Os Onzekadezoenk study, commanded and paid by Floricultura, but there has been several since) showed that the growth was greatly reduced with the use of all nitrate fertilizer, or even calcium nitrate at too high strength.

And so far again, there has been a very big trial in NZ, with many different potting mixes and MSU was tried against a standard Peters 20-20-20, and MSU gave really bad results, using RO Water... The publication of the full trial should occur ( in an University publication) this year, but it was interesting really.

I use RO water, using an industrial RO water system, and the EC is between 8-12 microsiemens after filtration.

For the boron, it is not a theory, but unfortunately it is proven in some situations. After a while, many paphs (and phals...) growers said that 'the plants stop growing because the media is old'. Well, OK, so there must be something in the old media. Analysis after analysis, there were some differences, but nothing that could explain the root growth slow down after some months/a year. And nothing toxic. The only difference was boron, simple... Again, we could not find any of those 'salts accumulation that makes the media to become toxic' when the plants stop growing, except in specific circumstances ( tap water, not flushing properly, etc...), but there were some deficiencies, copper, boron, zinc... apart from some decayed media whose pH was out of range for the crop, of course.



Stone said:


> From my experience in growing plants over the years, and apart from some of Xavier's more ''unusual references'', I would agree with most of what he says. Except the pH quote of 5.7-6 is a bit narrow to me. I would say 5.7 to 6.8 would be quite workable for most species. I also agree with the 50/50 nitrate/ammonium N for orchids if not all plants when specific species data is unavailable.



For the pH, 5.7 to 6.8 could be way too much for some species. In fact, we do not know the perfect specifics of all individual orchid species, but things like pansies, pelargonium, etc... have a pH range that is very narrow ( around 0.2 to 0.3 unit, not more), therefore my recommendation.


----------



## Rick (Jan 29, 2013)

Roth said:


> I would be more scared by a potassium deficiency, because it is a sudden collapse of the plant, and once the potassium is moved out of the old tissues, there is no way to restore older plant parts content when they are too old ( 2-3 years old), which means one could loose many old bulbs at once.



How long would you be scared? I'm up to 2 years of this system on some very big plants (multiple genera). No losses and they keep getting bigger.:wink:


----------



## Paul (Jan 30, 2013)

It's not to criticize, Xavier, as there are very interesting things that you have put together with many explanations and some receipes. 

I have a few things to comment. First about the size of the plants that can be way bigger in the wild than in cultivation (for example randsii or anitum as you wrote). Well, there are surely cultural issues that can explain that, such as "why would it grow better with ferns in the medium than without it?". There something missing I guess to explain if you're right. Also, don't forget that in the wild these plants are, I would say, under 95+ shade, into deep, very humid forest. So leaves should be very big and very dark to compensate the lack of light. when grown brighter, leaves will be smaller but plants still can grow and bloom if the growing environnemnt is good (medium, water, humidity, temperatures).
Also, you're growing in Vietnam so you have to grow what you call "deep shade" but in Northern countries the light is not so strong so we better grow under "medium light", that's about 70-80% sahde in summer, and can be as low as 50% shade in winter, to me.

About the media potting, you're saying almost none of them are really suitable for growing Paphs except Orchiata and a few other hard to fin things like ferns. that may be true, except that many (most) growers are doing very well for years (or even decades!) with French pine bark or CHC for example. Maybe it depends on the preparation and the mix itself, and also their watering method. 

Finally, I would say thank you for making me asking questions about culture and especially showing that sometimes, the plant is not the problem (about the hard growing plants), but it just can be how we grow it... 

And please, when you have time, show us a few photos of the plants like wentworthianum or anitum or intaniae ... to show us it's possible to have them well grown.


----------



## reivilos (Jan 30, 2013)

Indeed. I wouldn't mind seeing a few pics...


----------



## Hakone (Jan 30, 2013)

A picture is worth a thousand words .


----------



## Stone (Jan 31, 2013)

Rick said:


> How long would you be scared? I'm up to 2 years of this system on some very big plants (multiple genera). No losses and they keep getting bigger.:wink:



About the low K thing.
Just a couple of points:
It would be interesting to see/hear from someone using the klite with totally inert media like clay balls or rockwool for a couple of years. If the plants are doing well, then the leaf analysis will show normal K levels which means the plant is still able to uptake enough even from the meager amount offered.
IF you have moss or chc etc in your media, its possible that increasing amounts are held (electrally) from previous feedings.(nitrate and P will be leached out)
But from all the literature I have, I still see no real reason to offer such low amounts of K. After countless experiments, optimum levels are continually found to be in the range of 0.9 to 1.5 K/N ratio. (meaning lower levels reduced growth) and up to 2.0 in very low light situations to counter leaf etiolation.
My information says ''There is NO SUCH THING as K toxicity'' and that feeding too much K will ONLY lead to Mg deficiency if not enough is applied. It doesn't even mention Ca. Apparently Ca deficieny is extreamly rare if your pH is above about 5.7. Also, Luxury accumulations of K are quickly used when the plant flowers when we should hold off on the feeding anyway as there is little activity from the rest of the plant.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> About the low K thing.
> Just a couple of points:
> It would be interesting to see/hear from someone using the klite with totally inert media like clay balls or rockwool for a couple of years.



Like that Phrag longifolium I posted last week. Definitely not on the verge of death. Just keeps getting bigger and better.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> My information says ''There is NO SUCH THING as K toxicity'' and that feeding too much K will ONLY lead to Mg deficiency



By definition antagonism is a form of toxicity.

And yes I have papers from the agricultural community for both rice and cotton that show that excess K causes antagonism of Ca and Mg.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> My information says .



Your information is apparently very limited.

But I have yet to see any litterature demonstrating that orchids ever see 100ppm soluble K in the wild, and you have supplied us with with 2 sources that showed that orchids in the wild generally contain higher Ca than K in their tissues (unless they are ant fed). 

Your Zotz article was very telling in that respect. The orchid species recycled (by direct reabsorption) about 45% of the K in their leaves during seinesence, while less than 1/2 that of Ca and Mg. That tells you right there, that K is at a premium to obtain while Ca and Mg are plentiful to waste.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> It would be interesting to see/hear from someone using the klite with totally inert media like clay balls or rockwool for a couple of years. If the plants are doing well, then the leaf analysis will show normal K levels which means the plant is still able to uptake enough even from the meager amount offered



Ray is growing mostly SH in inert media.

So far he is pleased, although I don't think up to a full two years yet.

Maybe ST could fund the leaf tissue research?


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 31, 2013)

ST has money???


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

SlipperFan said:


> ST has money???



I know we periodically run fund raisers to pay for the website.

However lab work isn't free either.


----------



## Stone (Jan 31, 2013)

Rick said:


> > By definition antagonism is a form of toxicity.
> 
> 
> 
> No... toxicity is damage caused by specific ions. If antagonism by K leads to deficiency in Mg and Ca, this is also not toxicity. As I said, countless trials have not found Mg or Ca deficiency from K ratios at at 1.5 to 2 times N. Most orchids have been grown well for decades with those ratios so where is all the antagonism? What are you seeing now that you didn't see before klite? or, What are you not seeing now that you saw before klite? What am I missing?


----------



## Stone (Jan 31, 2013)

Rick said:


> Like that Phrag longifolium I posted last week. Definitely not on the verge of death. Just keeps getting bigger and better.



This paph (many years old) is also getting bigger and better and fed with the ''normal'' K levels. So how would Klike help this plant? What would happen to it? My feeling is there would be not much difference in the short term and in the long term possibly K deficiency (but possibly not) so whats the point? I still have trouble seeing the point.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 31, 2013)

wish all my paphs had roots like that!!!


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > No... toxicity is damage caused by specific ions.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Most orchids have been grown well for decades with those ratios so where is all the antagonism?
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> About the low K thing.
> 
> After countless experiments, optimum levels are continually found to be in the range of 0.9 to 1.5 K/N ratio.



Where are all these countless experiments (with orchids)? I found a few short term trials with hybrid phales. And rarely if did they account for Ca and Mg.

Nature is the best long term trial and I only found a small minority of cases where wild orchids had access to K higher than Ca, and actually accumulated more K than Ca.


----------



## Cheyenne (Jan 31, 2013)

For years I used reg fert with reg K levels(and I am back to it now) and when I would supplement with calcium and magnesium I could tell a real difference in the plants and the growths. When I wouldn't use them for a while I would notice. So at regular K levels it does not seem that calcium and magnesium were blocked by K. 
I think with K-lite plants might do good because of the increased calcium and magnesium, but I don't see why they can't get that with normal K levels. At a certain point the potting mix can get saturated with K, other salts and minerals. But if you balance fertilizer rates, watering/flushing and repotting like has been recommended by a lot of good growers you should not have a problem. I have seen some amazing plants brought in to our meetings year after year that keep getting bigger and bigger. Some in coconut husk, some bark, some moss but most of them feed with a balanced fertilizer. Alot of the people in my orchid society use RO water and swear by a 20-20-20 or a bloom booster. I don't think that is the best way to go or agree with it but there is no doubt that their plants are great year after year.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Stone said:


> This paph (many years old) is also getting bigger and better and fed with the ''normal'' K levels. So how would Klike help this plant? What would happen to it? My feeling is there would be not much difference in the short term and in the long term possibly K deficiency (but possibly not) so whats the point? I still have trouble seeing the point.



You never know, I have long term plants that I thought couldn't get any better too. But I was wrong. They actually got bigger and better. And with less input all the way around.

Xavier is still using a relatively high amount of K (and N for that matter). It doesn't sound like he's cranking out anything better than anyone else, still having trouble with the same old "tough" species, and is pouring pesticides, fungicides, and other 'cides' all over the place to do the same thing I'm doing with one simple deficient fertilizer program with no prophylactic chemical treatments.

The point is less is more.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I have seen some amazing plants brought in to our meetings year after year that keep getting bigger and bigger.



How many members bring their dead, dying, and sick plants in for show and tell?

When was the last time you asked how many plants they pitched over the last ten years. How many have actually tried to raise orchids from flask, and have the bulk of the flask make it to bloom?

We selectively grow stuff that accepts what we throw at it. If it does great we show it off. If it dies we come up with a handful of excuses like hot/cold/dry/wet/CHC/bark/SH/didn't repot/potted to much/disease/... and then we move on to the next victim. Many of us have at least as many failures as we have success. Some of us may have gone through 10 or more dead plants to get that one nice specimen. Many of us give up and just do something that's easy and works. 

Low K is what shook out of a huge informal ANOVA of the above culture complaints, excuses, and field data.

Large amounts of K is the single most obvious nutrition discrepancy between what we consistently inflict on our chids that their wild counterparts don't have to deal with.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> For years I used reg fert with reg K levels(and I am back to it now) and when I would supplement with calcium and magnesium I could tell a real difference in the plants and the growths. When I wouldn't use them for a while I would notice. So at regular K levels it does not seem that calcium and magnesium were blocked by K.
> I think with K-lite plants might do good because of the increased calcium and magnesium, but I don't see why they can't get that with normal K levels. At a certain point the potting mix can get saturated with K, other salts and minerals. But if you balance fertilizer rates, watering/flushing and repotting like has been recommended by a lot of good growers you should not have a problem. I have seen some amazing plants brought in to our meetings year after year that keep getting bigger and bigger. Some in coconut husk, some bark, some moss but most of them feed with a balanced fertilizer. Alot of the people in my orchid society use RO water and swear by a 20-20-20 or a bloom booster. I don't think that is the best way to go or agree with it but there is no doubt that their plants are great year after year.



Now both of us are relative newbies compared to one old lady in our society. She's been growing orchids since the late 50's not only is that before RO, but she has NEVER applied fertilizer to her plants. She even ran a cut flower corsage business in the 60's with 7 operating GH's. She never fertilized, and waters with well water from her place on Horse mountain TN (near Shelbyville) this is the same stuff she drinks, so it can't have "normal" amounts of NPK in it. She has plants that have busted out of their pots and grown into the benches (so they can't be repotted). She often has to get a couple of guys to help her get stuff out of the GH to bring to shows they are so big. She doesn't spray insectides/fungicides. 

So what is the advantage of feeding a ton of fertilizer, and then having to change the potting mix every year, and add chemicals for disease and pest control?


----------



## Cheyenne (Jan 31, 2013)

I have read the data for habitats and yea it is true that orchids don't see the amount of K at one time that we could possibility give them at a high fertilizer dosage. I am not disputing that. I am sure that a lot of the members in my society have killed there fair share of orchids too. My point is that you could have great plants with normal fertilizer and not heaps of dead orchids if you do things correctly and balanced. Low K is not a bad idea, but I don't believe it is to the extent that K-lite is. I don't think it will solve everyones cultural problems. I think when you got on the kick about EC management you were more right on. I think you could have the same results with a normal fert, wating your EC(flushing more), and supplementing with calcium and magnesium instead of fertilizer every once in a while.I bet if you feed with K-lite at the recommended dose of 125ppm like was recommended with msu and didn't watch your EC you would have the same problems.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I bet if you feed with K-lite at the recommended dose of 125ppm like was recommended with msu and didn't watch your EC you would have the same problems.



I'm also seeing improvements in my mounted stuff that doesn't/can't accumulate TDS. These plants (probably 1/5 of my collection) can't be flushed, and no EC to monitor. They just plain old like it better.


----------



## Rick (Jan 31, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> My point is that you could have great plants with normal fertilizer and not heaps of dead orchids if you do things correctly and balanced.



I agree except what defines "correctly and balanced"? What defines an acceptable mortality rate? Or acceptable growth rate? 200 years of orchid growing in my opinion have really set some low standards.

As I've said before, you can get a car to go down the road at 50 miles and hour with the brakes and gas plastered to the floor.

But is that "correct and balanced"?

Unfortunately organism metabolism has a lot more than 2 pedals to push so finding correct and balanced will not be obvious.


----------



## Rick (Feb 1, 2013)

I guess yet another way to look at it, why do you want to feed at 100ppm K if you have to flush 95% of it back out of the pot the next day?

In parallel with taking care of aquariums, sure you can dump a ton of food in the tank that the fish can't eat in 5 minutes and the rest just goes to rot on the bottom of the tank.

Then you have the option of vacuming and changing a ton of water, or cutting your feeding back in the first place and letting the filtration/biofilter take care of the waste the fish produce.


----------



## eggshells (Feb 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> This paph (many years old) is also getting bigger and better and fed with the ''normal'' K levels. So how would Klike help this plant? What would happen to it? My feeling is there would be not much difference in the short term and in the long term possibly K deficiency (but possibly not) so whats the point? I still have trouble seeing the point.



WHat kind of paphio is this Mike? A villosum or gratrix?


----------



## Cheyenne (Feb 1, 2013)

I never said I was feeding at 100 ppm K. As long as you watch EC and things are not getting built up in the pot. You can use any fertilizer on the market to grow great plants. I will agree that the recommendations of higher doses like 125ppm is going to cause problems. But it is more a problem of to high concentrations of salts in general and not K specifically. Orchids like a lot cleaner water and more of a low constant source of nutrients. Some species and other genera may appreciate more K than is in K-lite and some plants may appreciate more at different times of the year or their cycle. So for a mixed collection I just don't want to use such a low K formula. I think I can get as good of results with any fert at a low dose, good water, and other cultural parameters in check.


----------



## Rick (Feb 1, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> I never said I was feeding at 100 ppm K.



But by math if you use a "balanced" fertilizer or (or MSU) the amount of K is the same as the amount of N.

So if your target is 100+ ppm N then by default you will be feeding 100ppm+ K.

If you feed lower amounts of fert and you are putting that into a heavily calcareous supplemented pot (lime, oyster shell, ...) and/or use a surface water of moderate or greater levels of hardness (a hardness of 125 will have up to 50ppm of soluble Ca). You cover at least the second tenant of K toxicity by ensuring that the immediate root environment has more Ca than K. The plant and the potting mix will inherently pick less of it out of the fluid mix, and let it pass out of the pot wasted.

I have no doubt there are species that can do great at ratios of K/Ca closer to 1:1. I pointed out that species that have ant associations are particularly conducive to this condition (Gongoras, Coryanthes, Stanophea). But the majority of orchid species are not close to this. This is especially true for species living on limestone cliffs. They may be good at dealing with overall higher TDS levels, but the amount of K in their environment is particularly low. How many monster specimen P emersonii have you seen?

Granted on a single pass through a pot or over a mount, I would suspect that 80-90% of the nutrients go to the floor anyway. The dose of any toxicant in a potted plant is based on the amount held in the potting mix after feeding.

If you shorten the duration of the exposure, buy flushing a day or so later, then that in effect also cuts down on total dose.

So ultimately, yes you can always get a high K feed to "work" at some level. Now just reconcile that with "correctly and balanced".


----------



## Cheyenne (Feb 1, 2013)

First I said that some people have sucess with a balanced fertilizer and that I don't really agree with it and it is not my choice of fertilizer. I used to put some lime into the pots for a few choice species but I do not do that anymore after switching to kiwi bark (without lime added) and orchiata that I rinse first to remove most of the surface dust and some of the lime on the outside. The calcium and magnesium is in the form of nitrate and sulfate again at low doses. I am not targeting 100 ppm N. I said I think orchids are much happier at a lot lower of a consrtant feed of fertilizer and a good amount of clean fresh water. It does not have to be RO but rainwater work good with a small dash of fert when you are flushing. Again the main point is that you do not need to use a low K fert to achive good results. I think most of the problems come in when you are pouring on the fertilizer and not watching what the pot environment is like. Which is why I said I thought when you got on the kick of watching EC it was more right on than strickly using little to no K. You said a lot of times how orchids don't need much at all in the way of nutrients. So why can't you keep a good pot environment by using a low dose of any fertilizer? I think that you would see the same benefits of them picking up more cal and mag. Why does it have to be all or nothing? I don't think it was ever the K but the combination of how much fert was applied in relation to the mix and flushing that can cause problems.


----------



## Rick (Feb 1, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> So why can't you keep a good pot environment by using a low dose of any fertilizer? I think that you would see the same benefits of them picking up more cal and mag. Why does it have to be all or nothing?



You certainly can.

It wasn't my idea that everyone was insisting on targeting 100ppm N on a weekly basis.

In some ways low K is a great demonstration of differntial pickup of different nutrients.

Most are getting improved results (either directly in growth, leaf quality, disease resistance, or ability to grow those "tougher" species from flask) and still feeding at the same old 100ppm N rate. That demonstrates the effect of K since that was the only analyte significantly changed. (K dropped from around 100 ppm to 10ppm and now less than Ca). 

However, as the last couple years have progressed, its apparent to me that 100 ppm N (per week) is a waste. 

Yes I've increased flush rates, but a lot of the high EC pots were initially exposed to the old MSU. So was I flushing out K accumulated at 100 ppm per weekly feeding or 3ppm?

It also seems that since the high EC pots have been flushed, I hardly have to pay attention to them anymore, so accumulation of salts (especially K) is much reduced in general.

Since when is 10 or 3ppm nothing? It's still more than in most drinking waters off the tap. My well water is less than 1ppm


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 1, 2013)

Rick said:


> Since when is 10 or 3ppm nothing?



3/1000000 is getting close to nothing.:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 1, 2013)

Thank-you both for generating an interesting discussion. I now flush regularly with rainwater and have diluted my fertilizer regimen further. Only time will tell if it works in my hands.


----------



## Rick (Feb 1, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> 3/1000000 is getting close to nothing.:rollhappy::rollhappy::rollhappy:



Yup that is always a funny perspective.

You here about various chemicals toxic at micrograms per liter (like copper to water fleas) or even nanograms per liter (mercury and silver and certainly PCB numbers are something like that).

Another way to percieve this, is that 1 ml of water is a gram (1000 mg/L) and almost universally it takes 20 +/_ drops to make a ml

So a drop of water into a liter of water is 50 mg/L

Now consider how little nutrients are floating around in nature (ppms) vs how much we put in our fertilizer dispensor (teaspoons/gallon)!


----------



## Stone (Feb 1, 2013)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Afraid you are talking to a professional toxicologist, and antagonism is just one of a myriad forms/causes/mechanisms of "toxicity".
> ...


----------



## Stone (Feb 1, 2013)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > Most is probably the key word here. Even Xaviar would agree that MOST of the billions of orchids either brought into culture or seedlings started from flask are in that great compost bin in the sky. Not monster specimen plants like in your GH.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Feb 1, 2013)

Rick said:


> > Where are all these countless experiments (with orchids)? I found a few short term trials with hybrid phales. And rarely if did they account for Ca and Mg.
> 
> 
> Not with orchids but every other type of plant including shrubs and foliage plants many of which originate from the same Sotheast Asian or Sth American ecosystems.
> ...


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 1, 2013)

I'm with Stone here.

Its really interesting in how many other (english speaking) orchid forums the topic "Fertilizer" seems so important for the user to culture paphis. We in Germany don't discuss this topic at all - beside the salt concentrations of some cheap fertilizers which are too high for orchids roots.

Maybe if you use K-less fertilizers or P-rich (never tried one of them) you can make a little difference in plant growth or flowering but beside that I haven't seen anywhere a great success with different fertilizers. There are *by far* more other important things like tempature, humidity, light, CO2 and most important - substrate and watering scheme - than a fertilizer discussion in my IMHO.


----------



## Rick (Feb 1, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > I've also mentioned some species differences. Freshwater mussels are particularly sensitive to K. In some ways very much like orchids. They suck it in and can't expel it (except as below). At low levels (in the 10-25ppm K range) it acts as a paralytic and messes up the K/Na/Ca pumps in the musculature. Once you get up to 50 ppm or so K the build up of cations causes an osmotic differential and they start blimping up like balloons. Also interesting is that the more calcium in the water, the more K it takes to kill the mussels. Also interesting is that if there is very low Na in the system the uptake of K is irreversible with as little as an hour or so of exposure. But if Na is equal to or greater than the K, the mussels are able to recover if placed back at low levels (less than 4ppm) of K.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Feb 1, 2013)

katzenhai2 said:


> I'm with Stone here.
> 
> There are *by far* more other important things like tempature, humidity, light, CO2 and most important - substrate and watering scheme - than a fertilizer discussion in my IMHO.



Which we have discussed over the years ad-nausea. And no matter how much we tweak and fiddle around the basics it never gets us to significant high yields.

If we compare long term production levels of orchids to what is capable with food crops we'd be starving if we had to eat them. The problem is just that we keep trying to feed our plants like corn, and when they don't grow or die (no matter how much we fiddle with the light/temp/humidity, we make up excuses about mycorhizae dependence.


----------



## Rick (Feb 1, 2013)

QUOTE]
I totally agree with the above but I'm saying that excess K acumulation in captivity does not seem (to me) to cause any adverse affects (that I have seen) In other words, for every plant you have doing well with klite, You can see a thousand others doing just as well without it. Surely you can't tell me all those other plants are on the brink of collapse?[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the millions of plants that died while getting fed a high K diet. Seed grown or otherwise.

I could also say for every plant I've seen looking good with a standard high K diet, I could find the same thing grown even better with no supplementation at all and its probably 2 or 3 times older.


----------



## Stone (Feb 1, 2013)

eggshells said:


> WHat kind of paphio is this Mike? A villosum or gratrix?



insigne. And its been sitting in water for the past 3 months! insigne is a water plant:evil:


----------



## Rick (Feb 2, 2013)

Stone said:


> insigne. And its been sitting in water for the past 3 months! insigne is a water plant:evil:



And the roots didn't rot!!

Another generalized myth of paph growing busted.:clap:


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 2, 2013)

Roots only rot if anerobic conditions are present.The roots of paphs don't need "air"... but a healthy soil condition which can only be applied when no anerobic conditions exceeding.

Rick, you are selling K-lite so I think you have a biased opinion. The main problem with discussions about paph culture are the completely different conditions they are growing in our homes. Most people want them to grow on the window sill - some people live in higher humidity conditions than others. There are thousands of substrates you can grow paphs in. When people are ready to grow them in a standarized format (and not forcing paphs to grow in their conditions) the main problem of ill and dying paphs will be resolved.

Either you are using some astounding inventions to grow them extremely well or you need a science labor with standarized conditions to make some steps forward. Telling anyone K-less fertilizer will solve peoples problems on paph culture is misleading at most.


----------



## Rick (Feb 2, 2013)

katzenhai2 said:


> Rick, you are selling K-lite so I think you have a biased opinion.
> .



I do not sell, manufacture, distribute, or otherwise profit in any way from Klite. (Other than my plant mortality costs are reduced):wink:.
Actually I had to pay for my own that Ray got GreenCare to make.


I also don't grow orchids for sale.

I came up with the low K concept based on years of observation of the orchid growing community, my own personal growing experiences of 12 years, review of crop agriculture science, and research of the ecology of orchids. 

Although K lite is a product, it is also short hand for "low K high Ca/Mg feeding", which is really what I came up with. (I also do not make revenue from the concept)

First Rays in collaboration with several members of this site formulated "K'lite".

There are presently over 90 users of K lite world wide, and uncounted numbers of individuals using low K formulations of either mine or their own design. My "bias" is based on results not profit.


----------



## Rick (Feb 2, 2013)

katzenhai2 said:


> or you need a science labor with standarized conditions to make some steps forward.



Low K for orchids is also a spin-off from my professional work as a toxicologist.

I've spent the last 6 years researching (hands on in laboratory trials) the toxicology of potassium to freshwater mussels, and almost 3 years looking at the toxicity of salts to wild rice.

Admittedly no direct "double blind" ultra controlled lab studies on orchids (especially species orchids) but no one else has either, which doesn't seem to stop the from expounding all kinds of advice on orchid nutrition. 

As I mentioned previously, I have funneled a lot of data through an informal ANOVA (that's Analysis of Variance) that is a method of sifting through huge piles of apparently random data to look for commonalities. I didn't just make this up overnight from a dream.


----------



## cnycharles (Feb 2, 2013)

also, the present k-lite fertilizer formulation is just a step forwards from a big pile of really previously untested fertilizing regimes.

it's true that some growers are able to grow great plants without fertilizing (not me) and others have been able to grow great plants just by throwing on whatever fertilizer happened to be around, but I know that when I remember to fertilize my plants, they have responded positively to the k-lite fertilizer

it was pointed out above that 'the problem with paph culture was all the different conditions people try to grow them in'.... though that does present a problem, the main problem is that all of the paph species are not one species of bluegrass...... they are dozens of different plants that grow in very different areas. just sticking them into one pot with one cultural practice is not going to make them all grow happily. trying to find the magic bullet is unreasonable


----------



## emydura (Feb 2, 2013)

My advice to the skeptics, and anyone for that matter, is if you are really happy with the way you are growing your plants, then keep doing what you are doing and don't change. If it ain't broke then don't fix it. However, if you are like me and know that you were growing your plants totally crap, then you would be wise to look at the low K method. 

Before implementing the low K fertiliser regime my plants grew poorly. Many had not grown at all (or even gone backwards). Plants I had had for the best part of 10 years had never advanced. Those that were going ok were never reaching their potential. I would get divisions from nurseries and my follow up growths would never get close in size to the ones I received. My plants were flowering on small growths, many prematurely. My flower counts were low on my multi's. I was having a lot of trouble getting my plants to multiply. Generally a growth would only initiate one new growth not two or more, hence a lot of my plants would not form large clumps. 

Since changing my fertiliser to one with low K and high in Mg and Ca, the improvement in my plants has been amazing. Plants that had never grown in a decade suddenly took off. The leaves got bigger. Significantly they got much wider. I'm starting to get higher flower counts in my multi's. My plants are initiating a lot more new growths. My charselworthii which had never had more than one new growth at a time in 10 years, has initaited a 2nd new growth for the first time. Overall, my plants just look bigger, stronger and healthier. I have been growing Paphs for more than 10 years now, and for the very first time, I am really happy with the way they are growing. 

No one will convince me in a million years that fertiliser is unimportant. More than any other variable, getting the fertiliser right has resulted in the biggest improvement in my plants. And I owe it all to Rick. If he was here in front of me, I would kiss him.


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 2, 2013)

Rick said:


> I do not sell, manufacture, distribute, or otherwise profit in any way from Klite.


Ouch. You are right. Well... Ray ... Rick... :crazy:
Excuse my mistake! 

It shouldn't be hard to get a bunch of paph seedlings of different species and try a product like K-lite and some usual fertilizer and see if there is a difference and how big it is. Anything else without photo proof (where anyone can see a difference quite clearly) is a belief or science mockup.



cnycharles said:


> but I know that when I remember to fertilize my plants, they have responded positively to the k-lite fertilizer


How have they responded "positively"?



emydura said:


> Since changing my fertiliser to one with low K and high in Mg and Ca, the improvement in my plants has been amazing. Plants that had never grown in a decade suddenly took off. The leaves got bigger. Significantly they got much wider. I'm starting to get higher flower counts in my multi's. My plants are initiating a lot more new growths. My charselworthii which had never had more than one new growth at a time in 10 years, has initaited a 2nd new growth for the first time. Overall, my plants just look bigger, stronger and healthier. I have been growing Paphs for more than 10 years now, and for the very first time, I am really happy with the way they are growing.



I'm really interested in your conditions to grow paphs. What fertilizer you used before? Which substrate? Do you grow on a window sill or in GH? Humidity? Temperature throughout the year?
Because if a low-K fertilizer improved your growing situation I'm all eager to understand in a practical way why when others see only minor or no benefit. Beyond scientific background what "could" be the reason here.


----------



## billc (Feb 2, 2013)

I don't know if I'd kiss Rick, but I'd certainly give him a great big bear hug. 
I don't pretend to understand half of the scientific terminology he gets into, but the result of the experiments speak for themselves. Changing to the low K formulation has been a boon to my culture. I was using MSU and my plants were surviving. Changing to the low K and reducing the TDS to 50 has made my plants actually grow.
I even started putting some plants into baskets. Now if I could only find a neighbor with a limestone driveway.

Bill


----------



## emydura (Feb 2, 2013)

katzenhai2 said:


> I'm really interested in your conditions to grow paphs. What fertilizer you used before? Which substrate? Do you grow on a window sill or in GH? Humidity? Temperature throughout the year?
> Because if a low-K fertilizer improved your growing situation I'm all eager to understand in a practical way why when others see only minor or no benefit. Beyond scientific background what "could" be the reason here.



I used a few different ones over the years - MSU, Nitrosol, Aquasol. All high in K. I mostly use bark as my substrate. I did experiment with CHC for a period but went back to bark. I grow in a glasshouse. My humidity is generally above 50%, often above 65%. I have a fogger with a humidistat which automatically comes on when the humidity drops. The minimum temperature in my glasshouse is 16oC. 

I'm not sure where you get the impression that others are seeing little or no benefit. A lot of people have only just started using it. Of those who have reported back have mostly been positive about low K. People will see different levels of improvement based on the fertilisers they used previously. If you previously used a fertiliser that was high K and had little or no Mg and Ca (which is common in a lot of fertilisers) then you will likely see a greater level of improvement.


----------



## Stone (Feb 2, 2013)

emydura said:


> > I would get divisions from nurseries and my follow up growths would never get close in size to the ones I received.
> 
> 
> 
> David, Look at what you wrote here. To me that is pretty solid proof that it wasn't the low K that did the trick but some other aspect of your culture. The large plants you recieved were grown with standard high K formulations (unless by some freak chance those growers discovered the low K thing at the same time) yet they went downhill when they came into your hands UNTIL you swiched fertilizer. Why??.... They probably responded to the new formulation of N or something else (any number of things) You can't put down to the low K, plants that got back up to the original size when originally they where not fed low K. The increased (balancing) Ca/Mg. level - maybe. The higher Ammonium - maybe. Closer attention to detail -maybe, but not the lower K by itself.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 2, 2013)

katzenhai2 said:


> I'm really interested in your conditions to grow paphs. What fertilizer you used before? Which substrate? Do you grow on a window sill or in GH? Humidity? Temperature throughout the year?
> Because if a low-K fertilizer improved your growing situation I'm all eager to understand in a practical way why when others see only minor or no benefit. Beyond scientific background what "could" be the reason here.



All of these questions are well document here in various threads. Search the forum and read about Rick's and others backgrounds and conditions. 

The K-lite use is an experiment that is fairly well organized and with some controls. NO, the results won't be accepted by "science" because most of the growers doing the tests are "laypersons". 
BUT the results actually have a far greater value than if done in a single scientific trial. Personally I value the opinions of ST members about how K-lite affected their collections far more than a trial done at a university by professional scientists who no nothing about growing "orchids" in a long term collection.


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 2, 2013)

billc said:


> and reducing the TDS to 50 has made my plants actually grow


Have you used a higher TDS than 50 before? How high was it?



emydura said:


> My humidity is generally above 50%, often above 65%.


Effective humidity (opening of stomata) for paphs starts at 65% up to 80%.



emydura said:


> Of those who have reported back have mostly been positive about low K. [...] If you previously used a fertiliser that was high K and had little or no Mg and Ca (which is common in a lot of fertilisers) then you will likely see a greater level of improvement.


Sure it could be that the no present Mg and Ca has some meaning because it has an effect on the pH of the substrate in the long run - a benefit for paphs. The same could be done with lime powder. Also people who see no results most often don't reflect their expertience - because with no effect there is nothing to tell about.


----------



## Stone (Feb 2, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > BUT the results actually have a far greater value than if done in a single scientific trial. Personally I value the opinions of ST members about how K-lite affected their collections far more than a trial done at a university by professional scientists who no nothing about growing "orchids" in a long term collection.
> 
> 
> With all due respect Lance how could you say thet you would take the results of such a huge range of people growing plants in a huge range of ways and a vast variety of substrates over a controlled trial where every possible variable is taken into account? Maybe we should do away with all the Labs and just take a survey when we need to determine the factsoke:


----------



## emydura (Feb 2, 2013)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > David, Look at what you wrote here. To me that is pretty solid proof that it wasn't the low K that did the trick but some other aspect of your culture. The large plants you recieved were grown with standard high K formulations (unless by some freak chance those growers discovered the low K thing at the same time) yet they went downhill when they came into your hands UNTIL you swiched fertilizer. Why??.... They probably responded to the new formulation of N or something else (any number of things) You can't put down to the low K, plants that got back up to the original size when originally they where not fed low K. The increased (balancing) Ca/Mg. level - maybe. The higher Ammonium - maybe. Closer attention to detail -maybe, but not the lower K by itself.
> ...


----------



## cnycharles (Feb 2, 2013)

If someone wants to be a skeptic, then it's fine with me. I don't feel the need to rehash my growing and changes to growing and list what 'better' means. I've grown lots of plants in the last recent times, so there definite has been a positive change, if you would like to read up on what we have already seen and discussed you could check out the klite threads

There is no single thing that will work for any class of orchids in a sweeping way. For people having a problem with their plants and growth, it's been strongly suggested to try a fertilizer form that is what is presently called klite. This has happened because many have been searching for many years to find a fertilizer that works for a broad range of an orchid collection. Less recent tries with horticultural types of mixes work for some but fail for others. If you have a problem, then try something. If it works, let us know all of what you did. If it doesn't work, then tell us also all of what you did. People are going to be trying different things all the time, they won't stop because you are skeptical. It is far easier to jump up and down and say 'you are wrong, this doesn't work', than to try something and relate how it does or doesn't work.

One point I was going to point out in my first post, was that this klite trial is a beginning, of a work in progress. I'm sure that most here understand that it will take more time to figure out what a good intermediary, or group of intermediaries (fertilizers) that may work for different cultural situations. After some time, it will emerge that in some cases 'this' works, and in others it doesn't. And then people will talk over why there is a problem, and then work towards the next step. Which is discovery, and it's pretty cool. So far this is just the beginning....

For those who like to be skeptical, I challenge to have them report what they do with success, or what they have tried that does or doesn't work. Forums are for doing things, comparing and sharing information. Jumping on board and then saying 'you are wrong' is sure to not endear to others; first tell us what you have done and what works or doesn't for you.

have a great day/night


----------



## gonewild (Feb 2, 2013)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect Lance how could you say thet you would take the results of such a huge range of people growing plants in a huge range of ways and a vast variety of substrates over a controlled trial where every possible variable is taken into account? Maybe we should do away with all the Labs and just take a survey when we need to determine the factsoke:
> ...


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 2, 2013)

emydura said:


> Irrespective of whether you think it is low K or not, it is fertiliser that has turned my plants around.


I'm sure I will once try to use K-lite with some controlled condition, some usual fertilizer and Ca/Mg supplementation to see if there is a difference.


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 2, 2013)

emydura said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't changed anything else in the last few years. Just the fertiliser. At the end of the day, it is all about increasing the levels of Mg and Ca. I have done that as well as greatly reduce the K at the same time. I have also changed to using a foliar fertiliser a lot and also used the Magamp hose attachment so that I fertilise and water at the same time. So I have changed a few things at once so it is difficult to exactly pinpoint the cause. In the end I think it is the plants greater ability to access Ca and Mg that has seen an improvement in my Paphs. So I disagree strongly with your repeated statement that fertiliser is unimportant. Irrespective of whether you think it is low K or not, it is fertiliser that has turned my plants around.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Feb 2, 2013)

katzenhai2 said:


> Have you used a higher TDS than 50 before? How high was it?
> 
> 
> Effective humidity (opening of stomata) for paphs starts at 65% up to 80%.



When I first started the low K prelims on my own plants (2 years ago) I was applying at the rate of 80-100ppm N . I think it was back in 2003-2004 (3-4 years into my orchid hobby) when I had my humidity "epiphany". I started forcing everything to minimum target of 70%. My GH has gone through iterations of misters to foggers, to wetpads, and now a combination of wetbad for base humidity and (summer cooling) with a fogger to take up the slack, but when I discovered "humidity" I thought I had it all figured out since it really seemed like I had thrown a switch in my collection. So I started to work with harder (and more expensive!) species and started doing my own breeding and raising seedlings. I quickly found out that high humidity wasn't all there was to growing orchids. Yes I fiddled with placement for lighting, looking for micro temperature climates in the GH, bark vs chc, lime, oyster shell, dolomite, bonemeal, sphagnum, sand, mycorhrizae/beneficial supplements, you name the new fad of the week and I tried it. More food, less food (all MSU). I was using RO water virtually from the start (since I work in a tox lab and have unlimited access to RO water).

Some stuff did great (at least for 5-6 years), some stuff has gone up and down but I still have it after 12 years. In general my mounted stuff has always done better than anything in a pot. I've been on this chat site since it was founded, and listening to peoples success and failures. Keeping track of what was working at the time or not.

But it was when I started that project on wild rice I accessed a scientific journal article on K antagonism (blocking Ca/Mg) in domestic rice. I then used my research access (at work) to a whole host of journal articles both from the agri science area and eco/habitat arena that all pointed in the same direction concerning K. There is still a bunch of stuff that is generally accessible on the web.

I cannot generalize about many of the growing conditions in my GH except light temp humidity. I have mounted plants, plants in baskets, plants in pots...... But all universally doing better since dumping the K and ensuring Ca/Mg are higher than K.

Gotta run my grandkids want me to get off the computer!


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 2, 2013)

Rick said:


> But all universally doing better since dumping the K and ensuring Ca/Mg are higher than K.


I've read somewhere that high K with low Ca/Mg levels can be dangerous. On the other side it seems the fertilizer should be adapted to the temperature. Plants in low temps need lesser K than in higher temps. That sounds really basic and I don't have that science background...

So people who have success with less-K fertilizers... what are their growing conditions? Aren't these also important to understand who will benefit from such a fertilizer?


----------



## Rick (Feb 2, 2013)

Ultimately I think the base understanding is how much nutrients actually flux through the environment that orchids grow in, and then understand the science that produced the fertilizer regimes that we ultimately were taught to use.

Bottom line is that the amount of nutrients that jungle orchids see in the wild is a fraction of the amount we use in culture (regardless of individual constituent level).

Present fertilization regimes were developed for corn (and wheat, rice, potatoes). Food crops that we want to grow VERY quickly and produce large amounts of sugary starchy fruit to eat, and then discard. All growth and maximum edible production in 9 months. 

The primary use of K in plants is for sugar production.

Orchids have evolved to need VERY little carbohydrates and live virtually forever with very little energy output. The seed of orchids have no carbohydrate/starch stores to feed the embryonic orchid (they use mycorhrizae to feed the embryonic orchids until they gain their own photosynthesis). This is because K is actually very rare in the environment. Most K in plants is recycled from earlier growth and the fallen leaves of trees they grow near. Over hundreds of years the trees (with roots in the actual mineral layer and in contact with ground and interstitial water) dredge and concentrate minute quantities of K and get it up to the surface where terrestrial and epiphytic plants can access a very small supplement to the recycle rate.

Corn, potatoes, tomatoes, and other plants are now fully domesticated. Because their life cycle is less than a year, humans have genetically selected for fast growth and high sugar production (which requires lots of K). Actually there is no such thing as wild corn. It is a mutant of only suspect ancestry that appeared coincidentally with the advent of humanity in the New World. It is completely dependent on the connection with humans to supply nutrients at a rate far in excess of what is available in the jungle.

This is where all the research dollars and science into plant nutrition has gone into, and us orchid hobbyist have just been piggy-backing on that research for the most part.

Low K was really the first step to see how much of the corn science was actually applicable to orchids. Realizing that, yes, many people have figured out how to make corn fertilizing work for some orchid species and hybrids under certain conditions can be done, but how can we apply what we know about orchids in the wild to improve on what we are doing for the species, and conditions that always seem to elude us.


----------



## Rick (Feb 2, 2013)

emydura said:


> If he was here in front of me, I would kiss him.



I always wondered about you Aussies

I can't wait to get back down for a visit:wink:


----------



## keithrs (Feb 2, 2013)

Rick said:


> I always wondered about you Aussies
> 
> I can't wait to get back down for a visit:wink:



To talk about orchid culture or for the kiss?oke:


----------



## Rick (Feb 2, 2013)

keithrs said:


> To talk about orchid culture or for the kiss?oke:



Well actually I'll take a beer


----------



## keithrs (Feb 2, 2013)

Rick said:


> Well actually I'll take a beer



Sounds good to me!

Fosters... Australian for beer!:drool:


----------



## Bjorn (Feb 3, 2013)

Sorry for interrupting, but has anyone investigated the pH of their irrigation water? If you read Xaviers manuscripts it seems clear that he thinks that optimum pH should be some 5.7 to 6. now, my experience is that the fertilizer has a significant impact on water pH, the k-lite giving a rater acid reaction. Under my conditions, that is fine, the water ends up at around pH 5, and since my substrate has loads of carbonate rock, that may explain the excellent results with k-lite that I am experiencing. Ok, would it not be possible that with other fertilizers, irrrespetive of their K content, could give other(higher) pH values and thereby block uptake of (mico)nutrients?
I will not touch the nitrate/urea problems here, but I have started some interesting testing.oke:
Very interesting thread btw.:clap:
Bjorn


----------



## Stone (Feb 3, 2013)

emydura said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't changed anything else in the last few years. Just the fertiliser. At the end of the day, it is all about increasing the levels of Mg and Ca. I have done that as well as greatly reduce the K at the same time. I have also changed to using a foliar fertiliser a lot and also used the Magamp hose attachment so that I fertilise and water at the same time. So I have changed a few things at once so it is difficult to exactly pinpoint the cause. In the end I think it is the plants greater ability to access Ca and Mg that has seen an improvement in my Paphs. So I disagree strongly with your repeated statement that fertiliser is unimportant. Irrespective of whether you think it is low K or not, it is fertiliser that has turned my plants around.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Feb 3, 2013)

Rick said:


> > I always wondered about you Aussies
> 
> 
> 
> Don't lump me in here


----------



## Stone (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> > How could a single controlled trial possibly give results that would be applicable to "growing plants in a huge range of ways and a vast variety of substrates".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## emydura (Feb 3, 2013)

Rick said:


> I always wondered about you Aussies
> 
> I can't wait to get back down for a visit:wink:



We are a sensitive new age lot here now.  But I'm willing to compromise and offer a beer instead.



Ozpaph said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > David, what water do you use? Do you flush a lot?
> ...


----------



## Rick (Feb 3, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Sorry for interrupting, but has anyone investigated the pH of their irrigation water?
> Very interesting thread btw.:clap:
> Bjorn



Maybe rather than pH I would like folks to know the alkalinity of their irrigation water and pass/pour through water.

pH is a rough surrogate for alkalinity measurements. Generally (but not always)
low pH is representative of a low alkalinity water.

But alkalinity is a measure of buffering capacity (via bicarbonate ion) which is quite different than the huge black box of pH measurement.

Alkalinity is measured by titrating a measured amount of sample against an acid of known concentration. When you add enough acid to hit a pH of 4.0 (~~) you can calculate the alkalinity (as CaCO3, or more importantly as HCO3)

Bill Argo (the creator of MSU) demonstrated a very good relationship between the form of nitrogen primarily utilized by the plants (ammonia vs nitrate) and the amount of bicarbonate ion in the system. Low alkalinity systems preferentially use nitrate while higher alkalinity systems use more ammonia. It's gradual (not redline) with systems in the 60-80 (ppm as CaCO3) and up range needing a higher percentage of ammonia.

This was used as the primary difference between the "pure water" or "rain water" versions of MSU versus the "well water" version.

pH also will modify the uptake availability of various nutrients (major and micro), but the sweet spot is actually fairly broad with overlap for the different nutrients. There is a table of optimal pH ranges for nutrient uptake on the Antec reading room site (I've linked to this site multiple times over the years, so you guys can find it yourselves this time).

But the pH nutrient regimes can be over-ridden by aberrant alkalinity concentrations in pot conditions (especially if you load up the potting mix with carbonate bearing materials) so measuring pH alone is inadequate.


----------



## keithrs (Feb 3, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Sorry for interrupting, but has anyone investigated the pH of their irrigation water? If you read Xaviers manuscripts it seems clear that he thinks that optimum pH should be some 5.7 to 6. now, my experience is that the fertilizer has a significant impact on water pH, the k-lite giving a rater acid reaction. Under my conditions, that is fine, the water ends up at around pH 5, and since my substrate has loads of carbonate rock, that may explain the excellent results with k-lite that I am experiencing. Ok, would it not be possible that with other fertilizers, irrrespetive of their K content, could give other(higher) pH values and thereby block uptake of (mico)nutrients?
> I will not touch the nitrate/urea problems here, but I have started some interesting testing.oke:
> Very interesting thread btw.:clap:
> Bjorn



I do check my pH fairly often. I use straight RO @ a pH of about 6.8-9 . After I add K-lite my pH gos down to 5.9. If I had kelp my pH will go down to 4.8-9, So I add "tap" water to buffer my RO when I use kelp to keep it around 5.5-6.

K-Lite drops my pH about as much as MSU... It been awhile since I used it but if memory serves me MSU(RO) pH was around 6-6.2.


----------



## keithrs (Feb 3, 2013)

Why dont we stop b!tch'n like a bunch of broads and do some tests.....oke:

I'll pitch in a flask!!!

Then when the testing is done, we can sell or auction off the seedlings and profits can go to ST.


----------



## Rick (Feb 3, 2013)

keithrs said:


> Why dont we stop b!tch'n like a bunch of broads and do some tests.....oke:
> 
> I'll pitch in a flask!!!
> 
> Then when the testing is done, we can sell or auction off the seedlings and profits can go to ST.



Pitch in a flask of emersonii or hangianum. Make it a real test.


I have a micro trial going on a dozen lowii seedlings (out of flask and in CHC).

Unfortunately for the space issue in my GH it's been hard to keep them from getting "contaminated" by everything else getting low K.

I can report that after a year none have died (6 of each fert). Given the variance in size at the start, I actually started with some of the bigger ones exposed to MSU (to avoid criticism that I biased the start for K lite plants).

They are all growing. A couple of the MSU plants are bigger than than any of the K lite plants, but they are very "floppy" in the pots, while the klite plants are definitely more securely rooted. Coming out of winter we'll see if the Klite plants pass the MSU, or if the MSU plants loose their roots and crash.

This is still not much of a test. And its surprisingly hard to control in a packed hobby GH all shifted to other feeding methods.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > If I had the money and resources, I could easily set up a trial with say 500 plants of say 25 species over a year (maybe 2) that would prove one way or the other no problem. We are just looking for the facts. Of course I don't have either money OR resourses:rollhappy:
> ...


----------



## keithrs (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> That is my point.... No one person or even facility has the money to do such a trial.
> To give the accurate dependable results you expect, 500 plants of 25 different species would be needed to test EACH variable.
> How many different variables are there in orchid collections that would need to be addressed?
> Assume only 10 variables and then you need 5000 plants.
> ...


I do think that there are enough species that grow in conditions that would be controllable in the average greenhouse to get a proven trial that can be done accurately. 



> A time span of one or two years as you mention won't prove anything. In two years almost all commercial fertilizers will give good growing results from the start of a trial. It is after the two years time that the long term toxicity problems begin to show up. So a complete trial would need to run many more years.


So your saying that the 1-2 years that K-Lite has been "tested" is not enough to prove that it is a 'better' fertilizer choice than others?



> In the case we have here on ST with the K-lite use we are seeing how the low K ratios are effecting established collections and have the benefit of growers who know what to expect from their plants. When a grower notices that suddenly there are less problems with disease, sees more growths and overall better looking plants than they had before we have valid trial results where it relates to "orchid collections".


I can't say that I have not seen less diseased plant BECAUSE of K-Lite. I can say that I do have less disease, but I contribute that to other products.



> The argument that the improvements might be from other variables like Seaweed extract or micro nutrients or increased Calcium or Magnesium does not have merit because all of these variables have been tested before without seeing such dramatic results. The only variable that has not been tested before is the low K.


Thats funny.... Ray(as well as others) have documented that kelp extract does have an effect on the plants.



> So in the short time of K-lite trials it is fair to say that low K nutrient fertilizer is a benefit to growing an orchid collection.


Just like MSU showed us....



> We still don't know what long term use problems may arise with a low K diet but based on the decreased disease problem and increased growth we can assume the future would be good.


Lets cross are fingers like we did with MSU



> A grower has to learn how to grow plants long term, you can't read it in a book and just follow a recipe, because of all the variables.


I agree... which is why I think some of the results from K-Lite are from all the talk on there about pH, hardness, alkalinity, Ca:N ratio, TDS, PPM N, ect. has given others a better understanding of culture needed for these plants. Granted, K-Lite may be all its shaken up to be... but there may be a chance that it has even more side effects the MSU. Remember that almost of us have reduced the amount of N applied. I have cut mine by more then 4x. There may be a something to say for that?!? I would be interested in knowing what would happen if we reduced MSU down from 125ppm N to 30ppm N?



> Collectively the ST community has more orchid growing expertise than any single company or university. Members may not be horticulturists, botanists or trained scientists but they have a keen interest in their plants or they would not be here and for this reason the ST K-lite trial will yield valid results.


Keen interest in there plants may be why after reading everything on here, they changed there culture resulting in better plants.


----------



## Bjorn (Feb 3, 2013)

Rick said:


> Maybe rather than pH I would like folks to know the alkalinity of their irrigation water and pass/pour through water.
> 
> pH is a rough surrogate for alkalinity measurements. Generally (but not always)
> low pH is representative of a low alkalinity water.
> ...



Ok, I follow you fairly well, but there is one thing that puzzles me: If the pH is right (or for that sake wrong) and you disregard any reactions between the compost and the fertiliser mix, when the water hits the plants, how do the carbonate equillibria influence the pH afterwards? I mean when it hits the pot and wets the roots? Any adjustment of the pH has of course alteady been done before the irrigation.oke:
What I try to say (foreign languages make things difficult) is that perhaps some people have water or fertilizers or combinations thereof that result in water with a pH that is outside the optimum range of 5.7-6. After the addition of the nutrient of course. This would prevent at least some of the trace minerals to be available.
I have had good results using the k-lite. As a matter of fact exceedngly good. So per se, I am a follower. I have however fairly light colored leaves that I would like to make a bit greener. For this my previous experience told me that urea was the key. I have a test going that includes the addition of an urea based fertiliser that was incompatible to the k-lite. I do mix them though. This caused problems due to precipitation unless pH was brought down. I use citric acid as this also provides for an improved buffering action. As you know Rick, pH is defined as pH = - log(H+concentration) so a dilution from a stock solution at 10% diluted to 100ppm should give a pH increase of some 3 units-if it was not for the buffering effect of the mix. In my case the buffered mix at approximately pH 4.5 becomes an fertilizer mix at approximately 200ppm with a pH of around 5.8.
Calculating these things are almost impossible,testing is the easiest way.
The urea experimens (actually an improved micronutrient mix as well) is monitored, I started yesterday, and today as I made some photgraphs the leaves were already greener. Lets hope that trend continues if not, I have no proof for my allegations.


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> But then how to trial windowsill growers or artificial light growers?
> Too many variables so such a trial will never be done accurately or dependably.


Test *one* condition which can be established by most people and is in favor of the plants. Why fit the plants to our condition and not us to the plants condition? If it doesn't work for windowsill users they are not flexible enough to change conditions.



gonewild said:


> A time span of one or two years as you mention won't prove anything. In two years almost all commercial fertilizers will give good growing results from the start of a trial. It is after the two years time that the long term toxicity problems begin to show up. So a complete trial would need to run many more years.


I repot every plant almost every year in new substrate. So you are saying that there will accumulate a toxic level in the plants with too much K? Or do you assume plants get stressed and some time their metabolism says byebye because of the year-round stress of too much present K in the substrate?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

keithrs said:


> I do think that there are enough species that grow in conditions that would be controllable in the average greenhouse to get a proven trial that can be done accurately.



Yes there are. But the controlled trial is going to relate to that group of selected species. The results from the ST trials will give an overall result that represents the value when applied to a mixed collection under many different variables. We are not looking for the nutrition best for a mass commercial crop but rather what is best for a mixed collection with varying environmental conditions.



> So your saying that the 1-2 years that K-Lite has been "tested" is not enough to prove that it is a 'better' fertilizer choice than others?



No. I'm saying the exact opposite. The fact that the plants are growing better (or as well) as with other fertilizer and the fact that there seems to be less disease points to the fact it is a better choice now.




> I can't say that I have not seen less diseased plant BECAUSE of K-Lite. I can say that I do have less disease, but I contribute that to other products.



Why do the other products get the credit? Do you have some new products that other people have not tried before?




> Thats funny.... Ray(as well as others) have documented that kelp extract does have an effect on the plants.



Sure it has effect on plants, never said it did not. But it does not have the same pronounced effect as the K-lite. Seaweed has been in use for a long time and personally I could only see minor possible positive results and it has not shown to prevent the disease problems that are now becoming less with the use of K-lite.



> > So in the short time of K-lite trials it is fair to say that low K nutrient fertilizer is a benefit to growing an orchid collection.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like MSU showed us....



NO. MSU never showed the positive result of reducing the disease outbreaks. Adding this positive benefit to K-lite puts it a step ahead.




> Lets cross are fingers like we did with MSU



Time tells all. (controlled trials do not!  )



> > I agree... which is why I think some of the results from K-Lite are from all the talk on there about pH, hardness, alkalinity, Ca:N ratio, TDS, PPM N, ect. has given others a better understanding of culture needed for these plants.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

katzenhai2 said:


> Test *one* condition which can be established by most people and is in favor of the plants. Why fit the plants to our condition and not us to the plants condition? If it doesn't work for windowsill users they are not flexible enough to change conditions.



Yes doing a trial for a few conditions is easy but the comment I was addressing was regarding a complete trial that covers everything. 



> I repot every plant almost every year in new substrate. So you are saying that there will accumulate a toxic level in the plants with too much K? Or do you assume plants get stressed and some time their metabolism says byebye because of the year-round stress of too much present K in the substrate?



I'm not saying that, but I think Rick has said that he believes this may be the case. But I will say that it makes perfect sense and I tend to think it may be true.

I don't think it is too much K present in the substrate but rather too much K consumed and stored in the plant tissue. With the correct application of the correct balance of nutrients there should be no reason to repot every year.


----------



## keithrs (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Why do the other products get the credit? Do you have some new products that other people have not tried before?



I do give others(beneficial bacterias) most of the credit because they have been tested and proven to work! K-lite has not been proven just suspected! Resistance to rot could also be due to lowering N.




> That may be the case for beginning growers but a lot of the good reports are coming from experienced folks that already have dealt with these things.


Even experienced growers change and learn new ways. I still think the reduction in N has something to due with reports of lower infection rates.




> That one is easy. Plants grow slow and don't give the pleasing result as with a higher N rate. It is not the strength of the fertilizer it is the the balance of nutrients.


Agreed


----------



## Rick (Feb 3, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Ok, I follow you fairly well, but there is one thing that puzzles me: If the pH is right (or for that sake wrong) and you disregard any reactions between the compost and the fertiliser mix, when the water hits the plants, how do the carbonate equillibria influence the pH afterwards?



pH is like a black box that measures the sum of H+ in solution.

Certainly in the root zone you can have accumulations of bicarbonate ion (trying to push the pH up) and organic acids (like citric acid) trying to push the pH down, and both can go up in solution proportionately to give the same pH.

The plant will be reacting to the total concentration of bicarbonate ion, but not the net result of the sum of basic and acidic buffering compounds (pH).

I frequently see waters that fluctuate wildly by pH measurement but will have a constant alkalinity value (usually do to the sample not being in equilibrium with the atmosphere). De oxygenated samples in particular have low pH but high alkalinity because the gas balance favors CO2 (and converted to carbonic acid in the system). Let the sample aerate, and pH goes up while bicarbonate/alkalinity stays the same the whole time. 

But as before, bacteria and plants need the bicarbonate ion to run many processes (not a generic pH level).


----------



## Rick (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> To give the accurate dependable results you expect, 500 plants of 25 different species would be needed to test EACH variable.



I agree with all your points except 1 Lance, you can usually hit statistical significance at under 50 replicates.

But still, the "show me crowd" would never be satisfied doing it this way. I've seen plenty of good projects get picked apart to uselessness.

At this point I'm happy with the results in my own GH to give me the confidence to try bigger and better things. I wouldn't have paid $100 for a kovachii seedling until I had seen some of the results of basket and low K growth. The growth of my emersonii after blooming, is making me think of investing in a flask of hangianum seedlings. My results with mastersianum seedlings gave me the confidence to pick up some (hopefull:wink papuanum seedlings.

It seems the point of a hobby is to learn grow experiment. It's depressing to not have stuff grow and bloom. So I'm happier.


----------



## Rick (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I don't think it is too much K present in the substrate but rather too much K consumed and stored in the plant tissue. With the correct application of the correct balance of nutrients there should be no reason to repot every year.



True.

With regards to the disease resistance and K/Ca ratio, I didn't make it up or just make a personal observation.

This came from an article by Easterwood in the Fluid Fertilizer Association journal. ( know I posted the link at the time, but it will be referenced in the article).

In challenge tests to (I believe potatoes and beans), the incidence of erwinia and botrytus was reduced or eliminated as tissue Ca went up and K went down. The breaking point was when Ca exceeding K tissue concentration. Challenge tests are pretty extreme since you culture bottles of pathogens and spray them all over the test subject plants trying to force infections. So that seemed pretty convincing.

Since this study was not done with orchids you'll just have to take my word for it that I put 2 and 2 together with my own personal results in my orchid collection.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

Rick said:


> I agree with all your points except 1 Lance, you can usually hit statistical significance at under 50 replicates.



Yes but when you divide the 50 reps up by all the variables that need to be tested there is not enough to go around. That is what I was referring to.

To be of value to an orchid collector you want to test variables such as:
High light
med light
low light
high humidity
medium humidity
low humidity
high temp
med temp
low temp
(how many variables?)


----------



## Rick (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Yes but when you divide the 50 reps up by all the variables that need to be tested there is not enough to go around. That is what I was referring to.
> 
> To be of value to an orchid collector you want to test variables such as:
> High light
> ...



Yup where's me out just thinking about it. Sounds like a job for Monsanto


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

keithrs said:


> I do give others(beneficial bacterias) most of the credit because they have been tested and proven to work! K-lite has not been proven just suspected! Resistance to rot could also be due to lowering N.
> 
> Even experienced growers change and learn new ways. I still think the reduction in N has something to due with reports of lower infection rates.
> 
> Agreed



Lowering the N level will help to reduce the disease but at the cost of plant growth. It reduces the susceptibility to disease by hardening the pant tissues and reducing the amount of soft new tissue.

The idea of K-lite is to provide high enough N to grow rapid and balance out the K lower which IS BEING proven to reduce disease outbreaks.

I agree K-lite has not been proven long term but it has proven to be correct in the "medium" term. Your idea that lowering the N will get better results is not the correct approach. No offense to your concept I just know it is not correct and will result in less plant growth and smaller and fewer blooms.

At one point in time a lot of orchids were grown with low N....because there was no option, no premixed 1 pound bags of balanced fertilizer available. When complete fertilizer mixes started becoming available growers saw huge improvements in their plants mainly due to the higher N levels. It worked so well no one really thought to challenge the K levels until now. So you are correct even experienced growers change and learn new ways, but they don't normally go backwards.


----------



## katzenhai2 (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I don't think it is too much K present in the substrate but rather too much K consumed and stored in the plant tissue.


This could be measured as the MSU measured the plant tissue of orchids in the wild. Maybe someone should measure an orchid in culture and see if there is a difference.



gonewild said:


> Yes but when you divide the 50 reps up by all the variables that need to be tested there is not enough to go around. That is what I was referring to.


There is no need to test all variables. If paphs grow better ie. with high humidity than others should do the same and not expecting a fertilizer which will solve their problems on a windowsill. Thats ridiculous IMO. So testing fertilizers in a standarized condition which anyone can *adapt to* should be fine.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

> katzenhai2 said:
> 
> 
> > This could be measured as the MSU measured the plant tissue of orchids in the wild. Maybe someone should measure an orchid in culture and see if there is a difference.
> ...


----------



## keithrs (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Lowering the N level will help to reduce the disease but at the cost of plant growth. It reduces the susceptibility to disease by hardening the pant tissues and reducing the amount of soft new tissue.
> 
> The idea of K-lite is to provide high enough N to grow rapid and balance out the K lower which IS BEING proven to reduce disease outbreaks.
> 
> ...



Why are lots of grower reducing there N and still seeing same or better growth and equally important, same or better flowering? What I'm more interested in is root growth. Rick has documented that he only uses about 50 ppm N a week and he may be even be reducing that. I use 30 ppm N every water which is about 175-200 ppm N in a week while in growth and I feel it's still to much. I feel 75-100 ppm N a week will do just fine.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

keithrs said:


> Why are lots of grower reducing there N and still seeing same or better growth and equally important, same or better flowering?



Do they really know how much they were actually using to start with?
If have the amount of N that MSU recommends is better then why did they advise to use more?

It makes no sense to think a large amount of growers are suddenly cutting their N below recommended levels and then seeing better results.......UNLESS it is because at the same time they are also lowering the K to acceptable levels. And then if the raise the N back up they will have even better growth.....and then you have K-lite.



> What I'm more interested in is root growth. Rick has documented that he only uses about 50 ppm N a week and he may be even be reducing that. I use 30 ppm N every water which is about 175-200 ppm N in a week while in growth and I feel it's still to much. I feel 75-100 ppm N a week will do just fine.



But Rick is also reducing K. The point is that by reducing K you can use lower rates of N. But if you reduce N and keep K at a high % then you will slow growth as proven by history and MSU trials.


----------



## keithrs (Feb 3, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Do they really know how much they were actually using to start with?
> If have the amount of N that MSU recommends is better then why did they advise to use more?
> 
> It makes no sense to think a large amount of growers are suddenly cutting their N below recommended levels and then seeing better results.......UNLESS it is because at the same time they are also lowering the K to acceptable levels. And then if the raise the N back up they will have even better growth.....and then you have K-lite.
> ...



As Ray has pointed out several times... 125 ppm N was a random dosage that just seemed to work so that's what they recommend. Ray has also pointed out that he no longer recommends that dosage from my understanding. 

Your right... It does make no sense that large amounts of growers will suddenly lower there fertilizer rate... But I do see it happing and becoming a tread only for the reason that the growers(when I say growers I mean hobbyists)that have lowered there dosage of fertilizer have seen the same growth or better growth... Its a waste to use much more than 50 ppm N during a single watering no matter the make up of the fertilizer. Orchids just can't uptake that much fertilizer in the short periods that most fertilize in.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 3, 2013)

keithrs said:


> As Ray has pointed out several times... 125 ppm N was a random dosage that just seemed to work so that's what they recommend. Ray has also pointed out that he no longer recommends that dosage from my understanding.



125 ppm N is not just a random dosage. When MSU is mixed at a total strength that is the known proper strength traditionally used as fertilizer on greenhouse crops the result is about 125 ppm of N. Additionally the MSU trials supported that rate.
Originally the strength was determined by stair stepping the dosage gradually upwards and monitoring plant growth. When it became obvious that too much fertilizer was being applied the dosage was reduced back to the level that had given the best results. In the case at that time the best result was the fastest growth.



> Your right... It does make no sense that large amounts of growers will suddenly lower there fertilizer rate... But I do see it happing and becoming a tread only for the reason that the growers(when I say growers I mean hobbyists)that have lowered there dosage of fertilizer have seen the same growth or better growth...



Maybe we have a different perception of what good growth is?

I don't know what large amounts of growers are doing but if they think suddenly they are getting better growth by using half the nutrients as before something has changed. perhaps the fertilizer brands they are using are not mixing the fertilizers the same. If they are using fertilizer that is based on UREA then they may be better off with less fertilizer.
So far here on ST I don't read a large amount of posts saying that cutting fertilizer rates in half are giving better results...except those that are using K-lite.



> Its a waste to use much more than 50 ppm N during a single watering no matter the make up of the fertilizer. Orchids just can't uptake that much fertilizer in the short periods that most fertilize in.



That just is not true. I have done those trials personally years ago and orchids grow faster with 125ppm N compared to 50ppm. Now it may be true if your environmental conditions are not at the ideal levels for maximum growth. If you are comparing growing orchids outdoors on your patio to growing in an environmentally controlled greenhouse then you would be correct, conditions that promote slow growth only require small amounts of nutrients.



> in the short periods that most fertilize in.



I'm not sure what you mean? 
Fertilizer should be applied with every watering and as a result the moisture in the media always has nutrients available.


----------



## Rick (Feb 3, 2013)

The first several months of Low K I was still feeding N between 75 to 100ppm with K dropped down to around 20 ppm. And already seeing noticeable differences. Klite didn't come in til 9 or more months, and I started out at roughly 80 ppm N initially (at least for the spring summer months after it came out around December). I don't think I cut back to 30-50 ppm N until somewhere late summer (need to check when I started checking pot conductivity), and results were well under way by then.

Typically people cut back in winter by either cutting concentration, frequency, or both. Some don't feed at all for the entire winter season. During warmer months I'm pretty religious about weekly feeding. During winter if its snowy, cold and gray, it doesn't hurt my feelings to skip a week or two. This year I'm doing something a little different. I might make up a batch of Klite to feed at 50 or so ppm on Sunday. If the weather is crappy and cold, I might just water with maybe 5ppm N from the concentrate. I'm typically watering at least the mounted stuff daily, and give them daily shots at 5ppm(??) to use up the Sunday concentrate over the coarse of the week.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 4, 2013)

I forget you have winter. In our growing conditions here in California everyday is pretty much the same as the last. In a greenhouse it is Spring everyday. Maybe not watering on one of the 20 days per year it rains but on the other days watering is no problem.

Yesterday I saw the first wildflowers of the year. It even rained last week! 

In my indoor artificial light growing area I watered everyday because the environment was constant and not affected by the outside climate.

That just goes to illustrate all the variables that would need to be addressed in a controlled trial.

So are you cutting back the N because it is winter or because you think 30ppm is enough year round?


----------



## Stone (Feb 4, 2013)

Here's a study of Catt, cym and phal hybrids that (from what I see with a quick look) basically found that at 50, 100 and 200ppm K had little effect on growth and didn't really inhibit Ca or Mg uptake any more than N did. But it can get very complicated with all the interelationships between the N, K, Ca and Mg and whether NH4 is used.
http://www.firetailorchids.com.au/_pdfs/poole_and_seeley.pdf


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> I forget you have winter. In our growing conditions here in California everyday is pretty much the same as the last. In a greenhouse it is Spring everyday. Maybe not watering on one of the 20 days per year it rains but on the other days watering is no problem.
> 
> Yesterday I saw the first wildflowers of the year. It even rained last week!
> 
> ...



I started in September (this year) just because pot TDS levels were high so I was planning on just cutting back on feeding until pot TDS levels stayed down. But then I got a flush of root growth in the process, and then fall/winter ensued. So I really am playing wait and watch with what comes up as spring kicks in. My habits would be to pick back up to at least 75, but the eco data doesn't indicate that's necessary.

I hate to make things more complex than I need, but maybe I'll keep the seedlings and little things at less than 50, but the big specimen plants back up to 80-100?


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

Stone said:


> and didn't really inhibit Ca or Mg uptake any more than.
> http://www.firetailorchids.com.au/_pdfs/poole_and_seeley.pdf




Ya I saw this article when I was looking at things in the past.

Actually if you look at table 3 it shows that as K goes up, Ca an Mg go down (and significantly) all those little ABC's off to the side denote which items in that column are statistically significant.

In table 3 they only show the lowest K at 100 ppm (for Phales) 50ppm for the other genera, so we are dealing pretty much with the old MSU data that looked at orchids already exposed to high K.

Note that the K is always higher than Ca/Mg This ain't like it is in the jungle, where K is lower than 5ppm and Ca higher than K


----------



## keithrs (Feb 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> 125 ppm N is not just a random dosage. When MSU is mixed at a total strength that is the known proper strength traditionally used as fertilizer on greenhouse crops the result is about 125 ppm of N. Additionally the MSU trials supported that rate.
> Originally the strength was determined by stair stepping the dosage gradually upwards and monitoring plant growth. When it became obvious that too much fertilizer was being applied the dosage was reduced back to the level that had given the best results. In the case at that time the best result was the fastest growth.


Thank you for clarifying!




> Maybe we have a different perception of what good growth is?


It may be so... I don't look for super fast growth as it is more prone to infections.




> That just is not true. I have done those trials personally years ago and orchids grow faster with 125ppm N compared to 50ppm. Now it may be true if your environmental conditions are not at the ideal levels for maximum growth. If you are comparing growing orchids outdoors on your patio to growing in an environmentally controlled greenhouse then you would be correct, conditions that promote slow growth only require small amounts of nutrients.


I dont doubt your findings as my plants grow faster on 125ppm N but does that make them 'better'? They grow faster but how long do they live? I compare that to someone eating a fatting diet for there whole life and another eating a limited controlled diet that supports there activity levels. Sure some may be active enough to support that fatty diet and show little effects other than being alittle 'over weight' and then suddenly die from there health problems or show the effects of there diet and die a slow death.... While the one on a healthy diet that supported normal growth lived a longer healthier life.

I also ask you, How many of us have ideal conditions? If we did we could all do a trial on K-Lite and prove that works or not.oke:

Personally, I like the results of K-lite and buy the proof mother nature provides. I'm not sold on the fact that it drastically reduces infections.(I have an epiphyllum that was feed K-lite and is full of an infection as we speak) Just like I'm not sold on aspirin as a cure to infection. 

As you said earlier...Its easier to correct an deficiency than an over feed plant.




> I'm not sure what you mean?


Most people just give there plants a quick spray of fertilizer. Some may come back for a second dose. I suggest to water like mother nature does and water for longer periods with less fertilizer as a mist or small drops. Not a drench that flows water so fast that your plant barely has time to absorb the water. 



> Fertilizer should be applied with every watering and as a result the moisture in the media always has nutrients available.


I do agree with applying fertilizer at every watering and that nutrients may be available in the pot but if the roots can't uptake because the media has absorbed the moisture with nutrient.... Or if you flush more then fertilize to control the EC in the pots... How about plants on mounts? What use does excess fertilizer in the pot really have? How much fertilizer is really available to the plant vs how much are you really hurting the plant with excess salts? As you know...Medias have different properties that may or may not allow the root zone to stay moist to the point the roots can absorb the nutrients.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

Stone said:


> didn't really inhibit Ca or Mg uptake
> http://www.firetailorchids.com.au/_pdfs/poole_and_seeley.pdf



I think what is really telling (unless its a typo) is that Ca was available at constantly 200ppm (!!!) while the K is added at 50 -300 ppm. And the K was still ending up in the plants at higher concentrations than the Ca or Mg! And suppressing with increasing K dose. Isn't this in total support of the theory that if K is present in large quantities, the plants will pick it up preferentially to Ca? Shoot I wish I had looked at this article closer when I did, it really helps make the low K point!

They only ran this test for 1 growing season too it seems, and with easy plants.

What would the results be like if (like the rest of us RO users with MSU) are seeing with 100ppm K and only 50ppm Ca?


----------



## keithrs (Feb 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> Ya I saw this article when I was looking at things in the past.
> 
> Actually if you look at table 3 it shows that as K goes up, Ca an Mg go down (and significantly) all those little ABC's off to the side denote which items in that column are statistically significant.
> 
> ...



How about the fact that the Catt. had a dramatic reduction in growth as N went up and even more so on root production!


----------



## keithrs (Feb 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> The first several months of Low K I was still feeding N between 75 to 100ppm with K dropped down to around 20 ppm. And already seeing noticeable differences. Klite didn't come in til 9 or more months, and I started out at roughly 80 ppm N initially (at least for the spring summer months after it came out around December). I don't think I cut back to 30-50 ppm N until somewhere late summer (need to check when I started checking pot conductivity), and results were well under way by then.
> 
> Typically people cut back in winter by either cutting concentration, frequency, or both. Some don't feed at all for the entire winter season. During warmer months I'm pretty religious about weekly feeding. During winter if its snowy, cold and gray, it doesn't hurt my feelings to skip a week or two. This year I'm doing something a little different. I might make up a batch of Klite to feed at 50 or so ppm on Sunday. If the weather is crappy and cold, I might just water with maybe 5ppm N from the concentrate. I'm typically watering at least the mounted stuff daily, and give them daily shots at 5ppm(??) to use up the Sunday concentrate over the coarse of the week.



just to clarify... Thats weekly N fertilization?


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

keithrs said:


> just to clarify... Thats weekly N fertilization?



Yes, but as close as possible to weekly during winter/cold times. I really only have the weekends for feeding days, so if the sat/sunday is crappy, I skip the whole week typically. This winter a bit different with some very low rate feeding on the weekdays rather than skipping a whole week or two.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

keithrs said:


> How about the fact that the Catt. had a dramatic reduction in growth as N went up and even more so on root production!



In some ways this paper is pretty crazy. If Ca was really 200ppm (as it eludes to in a couple vague statements besides the initial amount listed in methods) that's a hardness of almost 500!!!

This is very high TDS stuff they are playing with in general. Most of us wouldn't come close to subjecting our plants to high strength well water levels of Ca and Mg. So in general I'm not sure how relevant this paper is with regard for defining "proper levels" of feeding anything.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

keithrs said:


> How about the fact that the Catt. had a dramatic reduction in growth as N went up and even more so on root production!



That only seemed to make a differnce for Catts. The sweet spot for the other two genera seemed to be 100 ppm N

But who grows orchids with 200 mg/L soluble Ca around?


----------



## Stone (Feb 4, 2013)

What I see is the fact that (for Phals), persenatges of Ca went down a mere 0.37% in the leaf when the K was doubled and 0.73% when K was trebled.
Mg went down 0.05% and 0.13% respectively. K increased only just over 2% in the dry leaf from 5.77 to 7.92 when 3 times as much K was added.

With the Cym. K increased less than less than 1% (leaf content) from 2.48 to 3.31. Thats aprox. 30% increase at a K increase of 800%!
Ca decreased 0.88% of the dry leaf = 11% decrease at 800% K increase
Mg decreased 0.08% of the dry leaf = 20% decrease at 800% K increase. An no mention of deficiency symptoms and no effect on plant growth.

The point of this (the way I see it), is that slight variations of K up or down will have almost no antagonistic effect. For example if Klite had 4 times the K, you wouldn't notice. You need to add gigantic amounts of K before it starts making a nuisance of itself.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

To put those numbers in parity with other studies multiply your percents by 10 to compare apples to apples. % by weight is 1/10th mg/g of material as a standard unit for most tissue sample designs.

Then everything doesn't seem quite so "mere". But the data also show that those "mere" percentages are statistically significant differences.

Then consider (again) that the amount of calcium in this system is 200 mg/L. When us folks using MSU in RO water at 100ppm N we have 100ppm K, but only 50 ppm Ca (inadequate to block excessive K uptake). This study (from 1978) buried the plants in calcium, which is something we've all been told is a no no.

I'm not surprised that an 8 month study didn't find significant growth issues with elevated K (with hybrids) with elevated Ca . (Actually leaf tip burn seems to be considered normal in this study, but included as another parameter to monitor). But on the flip side it also shows that elevating K doesn't get any benefits.

But this article definitely shows (and noted by its authors as significant) that orchids are capable of selectively picking up and sequestering K even when applied in conjunction of high concentrations of Ca.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

Shifting numbers to compare to the Zotz work on wild Panamanian epiphytes (mg/g).

The Phaleanopsis from 100 to 300 ppm K additions (with 200 mg/L Ca)

went from potassium tissue values of 58 to 80mg/g (that's about a 25% increase in tissue K) while Ca dropped from ~32 to 24.3 mg/g (almost 30% drop)
The stats seem tight enough to pick off 15% drops in tissue Ca.

Also note that the highest tissue K in Zotz work is ~43mg/g (average of 16mg/g for orchids) in an environment where less than 1~4 ppm of K is readily available in the environment. 

Also note that the average orchid in the wild contains more Ca than K, often twice the Ca than K (rather than 1/2 or less than K in high K grown plants).

Now what about jungle plants being bigger, no leaf tip burn, lasting for years, disease resistant........ All things panning out in many peoples collection since they dumped the K and ensured that Ca is higher than K (like in the Jungle where life is good).


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 5, 2013)

Rick said:


> Also note that the average orchid in the wild contains more Ca than K, often twice the Ca than K (rather than 1/2 or less than K in high K grown plants).


Where did you get this data?


----------



## Rick (Feb 5, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Where did you get this data?



Actually Stone supplied the Zotz 2004 article I referred to.

I have other articles on total nutrient flux in rainforrests, cumulative leaf litter concentrations, and leaf tissue composition for (non orchid) rain forrest plants. All pretty much the same basic trends.

I have an abstract (only) on tropical orchids in India which actually includes Paphs. I can't get hold of the whole paper, but the summary values are in the abstract which also show that K is less than Ca in wild Indian orchids.


----------



## Stone (Feb 5, 2013)

Rick said:


> > I think what is really telling (unless its a typo) is that Ca was available at constantly 200ppm
> 
> 
> That must be a typo! Why would you add Ca way above everything else??? 10 times more Ca than P? I don't think so. Must be 20ppm


----------



## Rick (Feb 5, 2013)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > That must be a typo! Why would you add Ca way above everything else??? 10 times more Ca than P? I don't think so. Must be 20ppm
> ...


----------

