# Media for Paphiopedilum



## Mahon (Jun 24, 2006)

This post is to discover what media is more effective for which Paphiopedilums. I can only provide my research and its conclusions of my Paphiopedilum plants and their media, but as for anyone elses plants and media, I can not account for. This is to give a basic understanding upon relationships and the effectiveness of what Paphiopedilum media is made up of. I provide information on some of the components to make some of the media, but effectiveness is not gauranteed. Different factors effect the results of the effectiveness of the media. A single medium that is used by a "windowsill grower" will not have the same results as a "greenhouse grower", as conditions effect the outcome of the media. If there are better alternatives than these, please post, it is great to learn from others. Please message me or leave a comment about any mistakes or clarifications. 
__________________________

The first factor to consider when repotting a Paphiopedilum is "why?". Most people are accustomed to repotting their orchids at a certain time of year, or when it is convenient for the plant. Repotting induces expansion and growth, and reduces stress and struggle, so it is usually nessecary to repot to mantain healthy plants. But on Paphiopedilum plants, it is almost the complete opposite. One must find out how these elusive beauties grow in nature to grasp a full understanding on how to cultivate them.

First question a person must ask is where Paphiopedilums grow in nature and why they grow there. The answer is relatively complex, but the explanation is rather simple. Paphiopedilum plants normally grow in humus or on dead trees. There is a reason for growing in such dumb spots, why not on the side of a live tree, or on a beautiful rock suitable for a lithophytic dweller? It is what makes the natural media that the Paphiopedilum seeks out. Symbiotic fungi decompose dead material into usable, organic matter. These same fungi also make humus and convert the cellulose from the dead wood into usable sugars. This is what separates the Paphiopedilum plants from the rest of the orchids. Most other tuberous orchids seek tree roots, where Mycorrhizal fungi dwell, and eventually the fungi mycellium spread out to surround and enter the orchid tubers. Paphiopedilums depend on the Sybiotic fungi to help keep the plant alive. The Symbiotic fungi surround the roots of the Paphiopedilum, but do not enter inside. The term applied here is 'commensalism', where the plant benefits, but the fungi are left alone and unharmed. The waste product of the Symbiotic fungi is either the nutrients left behind in the humus, or in the sugars in the dead wood, which the Paphiopedilum needs. When there is no more dead material or cellulose to convert, the fungi usually dies. Ultimately, the Paphiopedilum slowly uses up the last of the waste products, and also dies. So, the decomposing media in a cultivated pot of Paphiopedilum is normally wanted, not unwanted as in most other pots of orchids. But obtaining the right materials that the fungi like induces fungi growth, which results in Paphiopedilum growth. 

Some things to be considered when selecting materials for a new Paphiopedilum medium include what conditions the Symbiotic fungi survive in and what they decompose faster. Symbiotic fungi dislike sunlight, the fungi actually decomposes at the sight of sunlight. These fungi are more "behind the scenes" workers, and tend to stay inside and hidden just below the top layer. 

These Symbiotic fungi need to stay damp at almost all times, and in a relatively room temperature surrounding. When conditions are dry, they venture deeper into the ground, or in cultivation, the pot. A nessecary component for retaining water is perlite or cocoanut husk. The best component is humus, where the fungi are already growing and thriving, but a person must venture into the woods and dig under old leaf debris to find humus. Humus also retains water for a long time, but when dried out, it simply turns into dirt, and is almost impossible to reverse the effects. The fungi keep the humus, humus. Humus is basically "alive". But if there is no humus available, use some dirt from a shady spot, or even compost, then mix the husk and/or perlite in. This is your base medium for the Paphiopedilum.

The next component is the "food", what the fungi are going to convert into nutrients or sugars for the Paphiopedilum plant to obtain. Cocoanut husk, as I mentioned previously, is a very good component for retaining water, and also for being decomposed. The cellulose fibers of the cocoanut husk allow it to be easily accessed by the fungi, and be decomposed at a quick rate. Another component may also be small, chopped pieces of leaf litter. These are the dead leaves, I recomend either Oak (_Quercus sp._) or Maple (_Acer sp._). Chopping the dead leaves into smaller pieces allows quicker entry access into the sides of the leaf to decompose rapidly. These are to be added with the base medium for the Paphiopedilum.

Some other optional components that do not hinder the fungi may include tiny pieces of limestone, small pieces of mulch (remove from about 3cm deep, usually contains Symbiotic fungi), and small broken up twigs. These can be mixed also with the base medium. 

Basically, the medium for a Paphiopedilum can be compared to organic gardening, and utilizing natures "trash" and "trashmen" (dead material and the decomposing fungi). 

The last component is charcoal. I suggest two types of charcoal options, and a charcoal additive. Though charcoal is nothing more than burnt wood, it still serves as a nutrient rich component. There are two ways to give your Paphiopedilum charcoal. A person can either get charcoal pieces (the finer, the better), or can burn their own paper and have charcoal flakes (make sure the paper is black, and not grey), either way works just fine. The charcoal, instead of being mixed inside the medium, will be placed on the top layer of the pot. This is so it will break down from the top of the roots on downward. Then, have some charcoal pieces, about 1/4 of a cup full, and crush them into a very fine powder. Simply sprinkle it everywhere on top of the charcoal in the pot, and then afterwards, water it in. The powder will slowly make its way down to the base medium, where it can be further utilized.

Media to avoid with Paphiopedilum plants are Sphagnum Moss and Bark. Sphagnum moss cannot support a Paphiopedilum for long, when the moss dries out, the few fungi that live in the moss quickly die. Bark is basically used for epiphytic orchids to grasp upon. Sometimes, but rarely, fungi is growing in or on the sides of the bark chips. They provide a Paphiopedilum plant no efficient purpose. 

Here is where my research is still in progress. This research on fertilizer's relationship with orchids can be disregarded, if wanted, because I am still working on hard evidence and statistics on these observations.

I have researched so far that fertilizer does nothing directly to an orchid plant. The fertilizer usually effects the microbes which live on or around the plant, or even in the air (these include fungi, algae, and bacteria), which indirectly creates commensalism between the microbes and the orchid. When fertilizing an orchid, the fertilizer does not absorb into the velamen of an orchid root. The velamen is a semi-permeable substance which allows water molecules and smaller molecules to pass by. All other molecules build up a residue on the surface of the orchid root and medium. Fertilizer is a great "energy drink" for algae, which you may notice on your orchids if you keep them wet enough. Though the fertilizer does nothing for the orchid, it promotes the spawning and growth of algae and other microbes. The algae is a very strong, but plant safe, natural fertilizer. The fertilizer may also feed the Symbiotic or Mycorrhizal fungi found within the pot, which may help the orchid plant. Fertilizer is a very dangerous substance, which can cause cancer, twitches, severe bacterial infections, death, and many other health problems. The natural algae fertilizer is a better alternative than the dangerous man-made fertilizers commonly used. Besides the algae's efficiency over man-made fertilizers, it is safer for other organisms also, and does no ruin water supplies (permanently). I am still to prove all of this, but most of this is correct. 

As I mentioned before, this will work for some people, and some people it won't work. Sometimes, the fungi will dislike the temperature, the surroundings inside the pot, or even watering conditions. The main thing to focus on growing with Paphiopedilum is the fungi, and not so much the plant. The Paphiopedilum will do its thing accordingly and as directed by the fungi and their condition. 

Please let me know if this is useful information. If you are going to try this medium, please use it on a replaceable or dispensable Paphiopedilum plant, maybe your conditions are not ideal for cultivating this fungus, and your plant may die as a result. I am not trying to scare anyone, but see the difference with the "before and after" switching to a more fungi-rich medium. I had a small _Paph. malipoense_, near death, and am growing it with my medium in shade with the temp. around 90F constant, and is thriving. Same with my rare form of _Paph. micranthum_ and _Paph. armeniacum_. The medium works very well for me, and I am now deciding to share the secret to my superior Paphiopedilum success. I use the same ingredients of this medium to grow my plants of _Triphora gentienoides_, which is an impossible orchid to grow outside of its natural location.

-P.A. Mahon


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Jun 24, 2006)

I'm not a good person to ask this question to, as the fungal relationship with the roots is the last thing I worry about. I prefer inorganic media and nearly no supplimented nutrients. I have lost more plants to added nutrition than to minimal sustinance, and the growth is not that different in my experience. Again this is just me.

The seeds need fungi to sprout before they can manufacture their own food, but adult photosynthetic paphs seem to do fine in microbial poor conditions in my culture. When using organic materials to promote decomposing microbes, you are doing a very risky balancing act between beneficial ones and potentially disastrous ones that attack living tissue. Pockets in organic mixes like humus go anaerobic quickly and produce toxins that will kill the roots you are trying to make happier with the decomposing matter. The key to success in both cases is plenty of aeration around the roots to prevent the anaerobic microbes from producing too many toxins. This is why repotting is so important since mixes break down and produce situations that allow these microbes to grow quickly and produce their toxins thus inhibiting or killing root tissue.

In the wild there is a very complex system of checks and balances that allows these plants to grow without too many troubles. Imitating this in artificial conditions is risky, but if it works for you then it is worth experimenting with. I have been experimenting with very nutrient poor conditions focusing on a balance of aeration and moisture instead and have been getting rather good results without the negative side effects of destructive microbes common in organic medias.

Jon
________
Toyota Hz Engine


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 24, 2006)

My head is spinning...


----------



## Mahon (Jun 24, 2006)

Jon,

You have some very good points and information. Conditions are a very big factor for the microbial relationship with the Paphiopedilum roots. And also location of where the microbes were picked up from will produce either good or detrimental results. 

 Humus and soil is always a risky medium for any plants, the microbes in the ground are usually unknown. But I have found that most of the plants I put in a humus mix (like some of my tropical Begonia or other plants) never seem to grow. The humus at first does inhibit fast action growth for any orchid, but within a week, the humus backfires and kills the plant. But I have noticed on the Paphiopedilum plants, the same is not said. I cannot say the same for Phragmipedium, Selenipedium, or Cypripedium. There are a few exceptions to my microbial based media, like volcanic lithophytic dwelling Paphiopedilum species, or maybe one that grows on the beach (like the Catasetum in Rio de Janiero).

I am unsure why I have not encountered the bad microbes, maybe Paphiopedilum has an affitinity towards certain species of Sybiotic fungi, and maybe these same fungi kill off other harmful microbes. I am unsure, and am still researching. 

I though I would share this medium for testing, because it has been way too effective for me to even comprehend. I appreciate the comments, and will take these into consideration. Any other comments or questions are welcome, learning from other's research and mistakes is what learning is all about. 

-P.A. Mahon


----------



## ScottMcC (Jun 25, 2006)

I have a question regarding the posts above:

If fertilizer cannot be absorbed through the velamen, then how does the plant absorb nutrients at all? To me it would seem that the roots must be permeable to ions or else they would never be able to absorb anything but water from thier environment, and I'm pretty sure that they need to be able to transport many substances back and forth between the roots and their surroundings. Fertilizer is really just a dilute solution of various salts such as ammonium nitrate, and I thought that plants underwent nitrogen fixation (converting inorganic nitrogen in the environment into organic nitrogen compounds such as proteins) by first absorbing it through the roots. Am I wrong here? It's been a long time since I took any chemistry classes...


----------



## Mahon (Jun 25, 2006)

Scott,

This is where I am still researching. The fertilizer does not seem to be absorbing into the velamen of the roots. Fertilizer is not always a very complex molecule, but I am assuming only elements and smaller molecules may pass through. Microbes like bacteria usually fix N2 into usable N, but I am unsure about all the other plants and orchids. Maybe on orchids, like I stated, the algae, bacteria, fungi, or any other present microbe may absorb the fertilizer, and convert the fertilizer into smaller "pieces", which is doing what they do, decompose. Paphiopedilum is the plant I believe that there is more to the microbes, especially the fungi. It seems as if the plants grow more vigorously and mature faster with more of these Symbiotic fungi. It is still being researched, but I am almost sure that there are these microbes present in everyone's pot of Paphiopedilum. I do not think that the microbes enter the root cells of Paphiopedilum, but surround. Plants like Hexalectris, Corralhorhiza, and even Spiranthes depend on microbial fungi entering the tubers so the plant can live. The fungi die off, the plants ultimately dies off. Paphiopedilum, the surrounding microbes die off, the plant maybe dies off? I have never seen a pic of a very large specimen of Paphiopedilum in the wild, but have seen super large Cattleya and Schomburgkia, and even Dendrobium. 

I am unsure if there is any research done on this, as I haven't looked around. I am trying to research on my own with no help to see what I can come up with. I still need lots more research, but I truly feel that the fertilizer does not directly affect the growth or development of orchids, and that the Paphiopedilum depend on Sybiotic fungi to survive. Selenipedium and Cypripedium are dependant on the microbes, not sure about Phragmipedium. Then there are always exceptions... I could be completely wrong on all of this, but I believe that my research is somewhat correct.

-P.A. Mahon


----------



## kentuckiense (Jun 25, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Selenipedium and Cypripedium are dependant on the microbes



Got a source for that? I think it'd be hard to say anything at all about Selenipedium.

Sure, Cypripediums(as do all orchids) need a symbiotic fungi to progress beyond the seed stage, but I think it's hasty to say they are fully dependent upon fungi for adult survival. There have been reports of C. irapeanum(and C. molle and C. dickensonianum, presumably) needing its fungal symbiont for survival. However I don't think it's safe to come to that conclusion without any doubts.


----------



## Mahon (Jun 25, 2006)

I can only account for Selenipedium aequinactiale through a grower's research, which needs some type of Symbiotic fungi to survive. The plant also needs good drainage and aeration through the roots to live as well.

But what I originally posted is not based upon speculation (except for the developing research on fertilizer), if that is what is being get at. Though I am working under the "Birk" type of research, with no information sightings, I still am researching by experimentation. 

I am almost sure that there are microbial fungi in rather small amounts in all cutivated plants of Paphiopedilum. I believe that if the microbial fungi popoluation increased, then the Paphiopedilum plant's growth would too increase. These have been my studies in cultivated Paphiopedilum species in my conditions. Perhaps the fungi may act different in other temperatures, in drier coniditions, or different microbial fungi found in different areas. The research is still being done, and I am going to be looking deeper at points that were discussed and posted. 

Has anyone ever heard of Paphiopedilum species, in nature, growing elsewhere than dead logs, cliff sides, river banks, or in the ground? I know that Paph. malipoense is a lithophyte, but pictures of the plants show that there is accumulated humus or moss in the areas it grows. 

-P.A. Mahon


----------



## Kyle (Jun 25, 2006)

I believe it has been documented that P. lowii has been found in tree croutches (sp?). There is often a bit of humus found there.

Kyle


----------



## Paphman910 (Jun 26, 2006)

I grow all my multifloral with fine bark, perlite #4, sphagnum mixture of the top five inch of the pot. I use lava rock, perlite and gravel stone for the bottom half of the pot to provide good drainage. They grow real fast but I repot them 1 to 1.5 year.

I also have a Paph phillipinense that has been growing the the same pot for three years in a mixture of sponge rock #4 and sphagnum moss. The plant produced five flowers on its first blooming with two new growths.

Paphman910


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 17, 2007)

I'd be most interested in knowing what people are using to pot their paphs in. Today I'm re-potting every one I have. Yes, even the ones that are blooming which I know is a big no no. I've used a mix from Kelly's Korner on some of the larger paphs and a paph & phrag blend from RePotme.com that has finer bark in it for some of the smaller paphs. 

I've found a few threads, this one included, that do mention specific blends for paphs such as Paphman910 just above me but I'd like to hear from more people. Growing in 100% hydroton is out for me... too low of humidity in the house. I tried it an some of my plants were very unhappy even with me watering them at least once a day if not twice. 

Also too, I believe there is something beneficial to paphs when microbial fungi is present in the mixes of cultivated plants as mentioned by Mahon. Does anyone out there add a few chips of the old potting medium in close to the roots when they re-pot their plants to capitalize on any microbial fungi that may be present?


----------



## Candace (Nov 17, 2007)

> Today I'm re-potting every one I have.


 Why? What are you currently using and why can't you wait??

I don't recommend using 100% hydroton for paphs.


----------



## bwester (Nov 17, 2007)

i use Terry's mix from Pine Ridge.... great stuff


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 17, 2007)

We're coming into the holidays and then we're going to be leaving for a few vacations and I've got to toss DC in a few times throughout winter. Add kid stuff that is ongoing and I'm to my limits. Some of these mixes are breaking down and some of the plants I bought are totally rootbound. We're talking plants in bondage. I weighed the pros and cons and figured better now than next summer. 

What is in that mix from Terry's at this Pine Ridge? Just curious. 

By the way, can anyone tell me how to add an avatar. The very first paph I bought is blooming and that's the one I want for my avatar. It was my first.


----------



## Candace (Nov 17, 2007)

> By the way, can anyone tell me how to add an avatar.



Select User CP at the top of the page after logging in. On the left you'll see the avatar selection.


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 17, 2007)

Ta da! I got it!

Anyone know what's in the paph mix at Terry's of Pine Ridge?


----------



## Rick (Nov 17, 2007)

Most of my mixes start out with Antecs basic CHC mix, but I may add oyster shell or chopped sphagnum depending on whether I think the plant would prefer a more basic or acidic mix.

Recently I've been moving my Barbata species (and a few other acid loving species) over to Lance Birk's "pretty good" mix. This is a simple bark mixture, but includes some sand for better drainage.

Overall I haven't found any mix that seems to be universal for all species or culture methods.


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 17, 2007)

> Overall I haven't found any mix that seems to be universal for all species or culture methods.


Basically, that's been my understanding which is why I'm sort of experimenting and poking around for what has worked for others. I truly don't have anything rare so if I lose one, I'll be upset but it won't be the end of the world.


----------



## Candace (Nov 17, 2007)

> Overall I haven't found any mix that seems to be universal for all species or culture methods.



I have.:smitten:


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 17, 2007)

Pray do tell dear!


----------



## Rick (Nov 17, 2007)

Candace said:


> I have.:smitten:



I believe its semi hydro


----------



## Candace (Nov 17, 2007)

You are correct, sir! :>


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 17, 2007)

Oh yes, that was that SH acronym somebody tossed into a thread once that left me scratching my head. I dunno about that yet. Gotta ponder it. For right now, I'm having too much fun using my entire kitchen as a potting shed with all kinds of "ingredients" blanketing every counter top surface.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Nov 17, 2007)

I use small CHC chips, augmented by major amounts of dynarok (= diatomite?), lava rock, leca, spongerock, and charcoal. I used to rely on spongerock alone, but I haven't been able to find it in the right size. Although CHC takes longer to break down than bark, it gets majorly waterlogged over time, so over the years I've increased the inorganic portion of the mix. I still repot after its been in the mix a year...and add extra for brachys, which stay a bit longer, because they seem to really resent repotting, even though they love fresh airy mix. The exceptions are delanatii, which gets a phrag mix with fine bark and NZ spahgnum in addition to the inorganics, and small seedlings...simply because fine bark is smaller in size than fine CHC...Take care, Eric


----------



## Heather (Nov 18, 2007)

Lauren, 

Don't over think it. You've already repotted. Think about it for the next time and remember, too many variables does not an experiment solve.


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 18, 2007)

Yes, I'm done re-potting every last paph. Don't need to do that for at least another year or two on some of them. I used these mixes- 


> I've used a mix from Kelly's Korner on some of the larger paphs and a paph & phrag blend from RePotme.com that has finer bark in it for some of the smaller paphs.



I'm also done re-potting every last phrag and used Eric's suggestion for a medium from a thread I started a bit ago specifically for phrag mediums. I do like the suggestion of CHC chips in a paph mix and have dynarok here already. 

Let me see here, I've re-potted the phals too.

I had to re-pot the Jumella because that thing literally tripled in size since I bought it which shocked the hell out of me. Same deal with the Aerangis but they only doubled in size since I bought them a few months ago. I picked apart the medium they were purchased in and simply duplicated it. Why mess with success and they certainly did take off once I got them home. 

I re-potted most of the jewel orchids a month ago. I've got a few oddball orchids left to deal with re-potting but am out of time now so they can sit for a while. They're in Wardian cases anyway. 

Two full days of re-potting orchids! I'm done. Time to clean up for the holidays!


----------



## NYEric (Nov 19, 2007)

You should post some photos!


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 19, 2007)

Actually, I did. My brand new avatar is the very first paph I got. It was very tiny when I first bought it. Maybe the size of a half dollar? 

I can get a photo of the Jumella and the others. I don't have time to screw around making the photos unfuzzy but I could put a ruler up next to them. Pretty wild that those plants took off as they did. Horseshoe up rear syndrome because I did nothing special for them back when I first bought them a few months ago. goldenrose was with me when I bought them so she will probably be surprised being as how I bought them in itsy bitsy teenie tiny pots that looked to be all of an inch and a half in diameter and there was the little plant in the middle barely taking up any space at all. I didn't know they made orchid pots so small.


----------



## SES (Nov 19, 2007)

I did some reading on root semi-permeable membranes and what you have to rember is that roots are more than membranes. They are alive. Minerals required for growth pass through the membrane by Active Transport. Active transprot requires energy, and this energy is usually suppplied by ATP. Enzymes known as ATPases on the plama membrane use the energy of ATP to pump protons across the membrane. This establishes an electrochemical proton gradient that supplies enery for moving ions into the cell. I don't think orchid roots are so radically different than other plants in this respect. 
Any botanists out there to set things straight?


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 19, 2007)

Hey! First post for you! Very warm welcome to you! 

Not a botanist or even close but looks as if you summed up the process just fine... excluding many carnivorous plants that have adapted quite differently to acquiring nutrients requisite for survival. And well then off the top of my head there are parasitic plants such as dodder that don't fit neatly into that category either.


----------



## goldenrose (Nov 19, 2007)

Heather said:


> Lauren,
> Don't over think it. You've already repotted. Think about it for the next time and remember, too many variables does not an experiment solve.



Well said Heather - I couldn't agree with you more!
Get the light & the water right & I don't think most slippers are going to care about what their feet are in!



SlipperFan said:


> My head is spinning...


so is mine! - hang in there Dot - here comes some more!

Welcome SES!


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 19, 2007)

Heather- twenty whips with a wet noodle to you.
Rose- twenty more whips with a wet noodle to you too!

I'm definitely done re-potting and have pretty much settled on the mix I'm going to use the next time I re-pot for paphs provisional upon them doing as well as they have for me in the past but I'd still like to chat about mineral uptake. 

Ok ladies- I tried my best to be lazy to avoid having to load photos into photobucket and ended up knocking over one of the Aerangis. Did a mighty fine job messing it up big time trying to balance it on the other edge of the Jumella then accidentally sticking my elbow on it and smashing it before I realized it was no longer in the window to be photographed. I thought I heard something topple but didn't think I was close enough to knock one of those over. So, here you have a combo photo of the Jumella (Rose, this is the one you helped me pick out that was all of maybe 2" tall) that is now a whopping 7" tall with two new growth points poking out. The Aerangis that isn't trashed balanced on the left of the Jumella pot has literally doubled in size and has two tiny new leaves emerging... as was the other one before I knocked it over not once but twice then smashed it. What an embarrassment. 







I am so excited I can hardly contain myself. Wait till you see the next two photos. I learned a new trick.


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 19, 2007)

Oh NYEric...
come out come out where ever you are. I went to go take a photo of the paph that is my avatar to get an id and figured no way would the photo turn out because it's too dark. I just discovered where the flash is on my camera and lookie how one of the photos I took turned out-






If I can do it, you can do it. I just learned where the flash is on my camera. It flips up. Learned that by accident when I knocked over an Aerangis and must have rammed the front of the camera into the rim of the Jumella pot. Thought for sure I had broken my new camera but low and behold- I found the flash. It flips up. Wow, I'm happening now.

So what is it? I think I know. Want me to pm you what I think it is before you tell me?


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 19, 2007)

Here's another one I've had for a few years-






I used the flash again. I'm thrilled with this camera now. Looks as if all I need to do to get decent photos is wait until after dark and use the flash.


----------



## Corbin (Nov 19, 2007)

You will get the hang of it


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Nov 19, 2007)

That's an appletonianum! Which includes wolterianum and hainanense......If the leaves are pretty its hainanense...if dull, its typical appletonianun...Eric


----------



## TheLorax (Nov 19, 2007)

You awarded stud you! Thank you for telling me what I've had all these years. 

I guessed half of it right. I was on the phone with Rose and I told her what my guess was and I got 50%. Not too bad for a neophyte. Of course she did guess appletonianum out the gate but then added it could be a few other hybrids. 

The leaves are very pretty and beautifully mottled. I must admit there is no white on the plant. That was the flash that did that to the petals. The true color appears in my avatar. 

The other plant still had a tag after all these years. It is the P. Norita Hasegawa Hybrid. The color in the photo is accurate on that one.


----------



## karenk (Apr 16, 2010)

*Now what?*



Mahon said:


> This post is to discover what media is more effective for which Paphiopedilums..
> __________________________
> 
> "Paphiopedilum plants normally grow in humus or on dead trees. There is a reason for growing in such dumb spots, why not on the side of a live tree, or on a beautiful rock suitable for a lithophytic dweller? It is what makes the natural media that the Paphiopedilum seeks out. Symbiotic fungi decompose dead material into usable, organic matter. These same fungi also make humus and convert the cellulose from the dead wood into usable sugars. This is what separates the Paphiopedilum plants from the rest of the orchids. Most other tuberous orchids seek tree roots, where Mycorrhizal fungi dwell, and eventually the fungi mycellium spread out to surround and enter the orchid tubers. Paphiopedilums depend on the Sybiotic fungi to help keep the plant alive."
> ...


----------



## likespaphs2 (Apr 16, 2010)

Nope, not a big mistake. They say you can grow anything in any sort of media if you water it correctly.
The thing is, at least for me, it is hard to explain and much easier to demonstrate..... 
The main reason to repot is because the media breaks down and suffocates the roots.
Personally, i don't like bark mixes. I like mixes with coir instead of bark because it lasts longer in my conditions.


----------



## Rick (Apr 16, 2010)

karenk said:


> Mahon said:
> 
> 
> > This post is to discover what media is more effective for which Paphiopedilums..
> ...


----------



## SlipperFan (Apr 16, 2010)

likespaphs2 said:


> Personally, i don't like bark mixes. I like mixes with coir instead of bark because it lasts longer in my conditions.



Me too. And diatomite.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Apr 16, 2010)

Wow...that had some blasts from the past!


----------



## NYEric (Apr 17, 2010)

wonder where some of them have gone?


----------



## likespaphs (Apr 17, 2010)

i was wondering that too.
but some, well, kinda glad they aren't around.....


anywho...
just make sure if you are worried about a plant, you don't love it to death. paying too much attention or changing things too quickly or frequently can result in the plant dying....


----------



## Brabantia (Feb 5, 2012)

Mahon, any news about your experimentation with your humus base substrate?


----------



## emydura (Feb 5, 2012)

Brabantia said:


> Mahon, any news about your experimentation with your humus base substrate?



It says Mahon has been banned. What did he do? It takes a lot to get banned on this forum.


----------



## Candace (Feb 5, 2012)

Let's not muddy this thread with old history.


----------



## Shiva (Feb 5, 2012)

Candace said:


> Let's not muddy this thread with old history.



Seems to me it was muddied right from the beginning. I hate those long winded posts. I couldn't even get past the first paragraph without feeling I already lived for too long.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Feb 5, 2012)

If memory serves me right, Mahon was the one and only person banned from Slippertalk.....although I think he was banned from other groups as well.


----------



## Brabantia (Feb 6, 2012)

Thank you for your responses, I understand why we have no news.
Although threads on this subject was interesting and deserves a development on the part of those who had inspired to produce their own potting material.


----------



## Ray (Feb 6, 2012)

I think the "fertilizers cannot go through velamen" statement was enough to warrant banning.


----------

