# Observations on Kelp and Humic Acid



## MorandiWine (Jun 28, 2012)

Hi All,

I started using Kelp Extract about four months ago and I have to say that the results are quite amazing. A topperi that had next to no roots from a recent purchase now has roots showing at the holes on the pot. Two sanderianum seedlings that came in with two roots each now have root buds forming. 

A month ago I started adding Humic Acid as well as the Kelp Extract and the results again are incredible. Plants greened up better and added thickness to the leaves. But the most incredible thing is what happened to the Phals. Two of them have started to grow new plants at the base of the leaf attachment point. At first I thought that they were new spikes but they are indeed new plants forming! Insane!

Here is what I do/use:

1 gallon of carbon filtered dechlorinated water
1/2 tsp Kelp Extract
1/4 tsp Humic Acid
1/2 dillution of 20-20-20

Sorry I dont have the concentration of the Kelp and Humic in front of me but the instructions suggest 1 oz/gallon on the Kelp and 1 tsp/gallon on the Humic.

Tyler


----------



## Stone (Jun 28, 2012)

But how often Tyler and do you flush between apps.?

Mike


----------



## Rick (Jun 28, 2012)

Also in San Jose the water tends to be pretty hard. So lots of calcium and magnesium with your watering.

Have you always used your tap water?


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 28, 2012)

Stone - I flush one time a month and water pretty much after the media drys out, roughly every five days.

Rick - I used to use plain tap but had burned tips on plants and poor flowering. Once I figured out that it was the chlorine and chloramine in the tap I installed a carbon filter that we make at my work (aquarium) and the problems went away. As for the higher pH and Alk, the tap around here tests pretty similar to media that has added oystershell and limestone. That is unless you live in Willow Glen, Los Gatos or live in the Mountains. The latter being exceptionally high in Manganese and pretty horrible for the plants.

With the construction of my new small greenhouse all of the water is going to go through 20 pounds of medical grade carbon for general watering and misting. There is also going to be a 100GPD RO unit installed with a storage tank to use with the Ebb and Flow systems for PK and Disas. The remainder of the RO can be used for other Phrags and Masd.

Tyler


----------



## Rick (Jun 28, 2012)

Tyler

I used to use straight RO for years, with lots of chronic problems with excess potassium. If you switch to RO then I would cut your fertilizer way down (1/4 to 1/8 rate) or "dilute" it with straight calcium nitrate.

If you are adding calcareous materials to your potting mix keep doing that.

I have since cut my RO with well water so hardness is still in the 20-40ppm range.

It's ironic that since increasing the total amount of "salts" while decreasing the proportion as K, that my "salt sensitive" plants, like brachies and phrags have dramatically improved.

Pk is doing great. They like lots of soluble Ca and Mg.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 28, 2012)

I was under the impression that the membrane on the RO should take out a molecule of K??

In testing the kH and gH from the affluent out of the RO and it was 0mg/l and 3mg/l respectively.

Interesting idea about mixing the RO and Well water.

Right now my mix is Bark, Perlite, Hydroton, Chunked Carbon and NZSM. Plants were orignally in Bark, Perlite, Carbon and some Oyster Shell and did not grow nearly with the same amount of vigor as hey do now.

Considering that PK comes from areas where the water seaps through rock it makes sence that it would be higher in Ca and Mg but I bet the pH is low. So low pH but high kH.

Are you in the Bay Area? Your info says otherwise.

Tyler


----------



## Rick (Jun 29, 2012)

Yes RO strips out all salt ions. Ca, Mg, K, Na, Cl, SO4, HCO3.

But surface waters generally have little to no potassium (K) anyway to start with. So by using RO with a standard high potassium fertilizer you are depriving the plants of a proper balance of soluble salts, ending up with potassium antagonism in the plants.

PK does come from areas of limestone seeps (which are common locally to me in Tennessee too). These are mineral rich and will have high hardness, conductivity, and generally neutral pH. But by ion analysis they are generally devoid of significant potassium.

Because I live in a karst limestone area my well water is also very hard, and "salty" by orchid standards. But since cutting my RO with well water (instead of using only RO water) plants are doing much better.

I'm familiar with California water since I grew up in Los Angeles, and worked in the aquarium business myself for many years.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 29, 2012)

Thanks for the clarification Rick. More testing is required for me to find the best possible combination.

Tyler


----------



## keithrs (Jun 29, 2012)

I live in San Diego and used dechlorinated water for quite a while than switched to straight RO water..... Huge improvement in plant growth. I tried adding in 10-15% tap and noticed little to no improvement in my plants. I use fertilizer at every watering so thats probably why. One thing it did help was pH balance.


----------



## Rick (Jun 29, 2012)

keithrs said:


> I live in San Diego and used dechlorinated water for quite a while than switched to straight RO water..... Huge improvement in plant growth. I tried adding in 10-15% tap and noticed little to no improvement in my plants. I use fertilizer at every watering so thats probably why. One thing it did help was pH balance.



The time frames are also important to consider.

If you check out Stones post on Phals I linked to a thread I started on my Phal schilleriana. I got the plant in 2002, and you can see in the 2009 thread that the plant was huge and good looking. This was all grown using MSU fert (weekly feeding) and RO water for the rest. None of my well water at the time. But the plant has totally crashed to a fragment of its peak glory in the last 2 years, and just now starting to turn around.

Obvoiusly I got what appeared to be great results for the first 7 years, but don't have much to show for it now.

Similarly I had huge multi growth paph lowii, rothschildianum, kolopakingii, and belatulum (just to name a few of 5year + plants) that all went through the same boom and bust, except they expired before the the low K high Ca/Mg stuff started.

I have lots of other 5+ year plants that I thought were doing great already, by since changing the feed regime to always ensure there is more Ca and Mg around than K, they have gotten even better. And initial size/age of plants makes a difference too. The bigger you start with the more tolerant of the water and fertilizer chemistry, stretching out the time horizon to troubles even more.

So try not to slam things back and forth, and consider that more dramatic changes may occur over multi year time frames. Its easier to see changes when you have a large collection of various aged plants (including newly deflasked seedlings) in various stages of health.


----------



## keithrs (Jun 29, 2012)

I figure "bloom and doom" was do to over fertilizing more so than water hardness. Whether it be over fertilizing in general or too much of one element.... May be due to not enough of certain elements. Some orchid will bloom themselfs to death if give then chance, So rest periods are need for those orchids. If one forces an orchid to put out spray after spray with no rest to recover you will have a "bloom and doom". That's least what I have been taught.


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 29, 2012)

All this information is fantastic but I would assume that all things not being equal, everyone needs to monitor water quality quite regularly. Regardless Chlorine and Chloramine are terrible for plants. Dean @ Paphiness and I have talked for quite some time about those chemicals in our water and the negative effects that they impart on the vigor of plants.

Kinda going back to my originl posting....what are your thoughts on the Kelp and Humic Acid? 

Knowing that a majority of our beloved Paphs and Phrags naturally grow in areas where leaves drop and decompose it seems to be a no brainer to add humic to the nutrient load as a natural suppliment. I am totally impressed with the short term effects and very curious about the long term effects.

tyler


----------



## keithrs (Jun 29, 2012)

I use kelp and fulvic acid and like the results. I have never used humic acid on orchids. I also use fish emulsion but you really need to add benifecal bactria and fungi to get the full benefits. Worm tea is also good to use. I tried an enzyme product but didn't notice any difference.... Don't waste your money.


----------



## Rick (Jun 29, 2012)

keithrs said:


> I figure "bloom and doom" was do to over fertilizing more so than water hardness. Whether it be over fertilizing in general or too much of one element.... .



You are kind of getting there.

When you fertilize, you are simaltaneously "dosing" your plants with N, P, K (for a basic fertilizer in RO), but in tap water you are dosing with NPK, Ca, Mg

Yes too much potassium is what I am attributing to "bloom and doom". N and P are essentially irrelevant to this problem.
But "too much" is relative based on the amount of available Ca and Mg (the elements that define water hardness).

So the lower the hardness the lower the amount of potassium that is "too much". The higher the hardness the higher the amount of K is "too much".

There are other caveats such as the maximum amount of hardness that will ultimately be detrimental to orchids in and of itself, and the levels of K that ultimately cause problems regardless of the amount of hardness. But a general mid range rule of thumb is that your plants should always be dosed with more Ca and Mg than K. Which is very hard to do with RO water.

I also use a kelp extract , but started with it after changing my basic feeding regime. We actualy have a whole other thread started on that topic.


----------



## Rick (Jun 29, 2012)

MorandiWine said:


> Knowing that a majority of our beloved Paphs and Phrags naturally grow in areas where leaves drop and decompose it seems to be a no brainer to add humic to the nutrient load as a natural suppliment. I am totally impressed with the short term effects and very curious about the long term effects.
> 
> tyler



Not sure if you can say that the majority are in decomposing leaf litter.

A lot grow on limestone cliffs, and a handful grow in trees, both with little "humus" accumulation.

Needless to say that between the hormones in kelp, and the chelating properties of humic or fulvic acids, many of us are getting some help from comercial kelp extracts with supplemented orgainic acids. But at this point this was fine tuning for me compared to the basic salt balance issues in basic fertilizing.


----------



## Stone (Jun 30, 2012)

Rick said:


> > A lot grow on limestone cliffs, and a handful grow in trees, both with little "humus" accumulation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MorandiWine (Jun 30, 2012)

Have you thought about the run off water from above the cliff? Surely it is not a baren landscape devoid of humates or leaf litter? The amount of material collected at the root zone that actually breaks down must be minor in comparison to the amount of "stuff" that gets washed to the plant. I would bet that that is how a majority of nutrients get to these plants. And for epiphytes, the water coursing its way through the bark and moss must be taking humates with it as well. It seems logical to me.

tyler


----------



## Stone (Jun 30, 2012)

MorandiWine;369129[QUOTE said:


> Kinda going back to my originl posting....what are your thoughts on the Kelp and Humic Acid?



I did read somewhere of a commercial Tawainese Phal grower who now uses kelp regularly with the express purpose of initiating extra side shoots in his plants. But I have also read that using it too much or too often can lead to distortion in leaves and flowers. I guess this might be due to hormone imbalance?? Maybe it would be wise to use it in measured quantaties and intervals. I've started giving 2 doses say 10 days apart then waiting 6 weeks before repeating. We all need to experiment! And (I think) I have noticed root stimulation.
Humic acids could probably be used more frequently? But I would say that the needs of orchids would be infinitesimally small compared with cabbages


----------



## Stone (Jun 30, 2012)

MorandiWine said:


> Have you thought about the run off water from above the cliff? Surely it is not a baren landscape devoid of humates or leaf litter? The amount of material collected at the root zone that actually breaks down must be minor in comparison to the amount of "stuff" that gets washed to the plant. I would bet that that is how a majority of nutrients get to these plants. And for epiphytes, the water coursing its way through the bark and moss must be taking humates with it as well. It seems logical to me.
> 
> tyler


Absolutely. The humic acids apparently chealating and combining with all sorts of compounds and elements.
Lance (Gonewild) recently said he checked runoff in Peru and that it barely registered on a ppm meter. But it must be there. Shows you how little they need and how effcient they are at sequestering!


----------



## Rick (Jun 30, 2012)

MorandiWine said:


> Have you thought about the run off water from above the cliff? Surely it is not a baren landscape devoid of humates or leaf litter? The amount of material collected at the root zone that actually breaks down must be minor in comparison to the amount of "stuff" that gets washed to the plant. I would bet that that is how a majority of nutrients get to these plants. And for epiphytes, the water coursing its way through the bark and moss must be taking humates with it as well. It seems logical to me.
> 
> tyler



The other thing to account for is rain fall. When it rains in the tropics it RAINS. This really flushes and dilutes things out. Even with some accumulated organic material in a pocket or at the top of the cliff, the volume of water coming down in a rain event severely dilutes whatever minerals and organics may be parked in surface accumulations. Even here in temperate climates, I get to see the analysis of various stormwaters across the country, and the amount of TOC past the first flush is pretty miniscule. 
The brown "tea" water of the amazon is primarily due to the breakdown of plant material on the banks and soaking in the stream itself, but very little is what comes out of the canopy.

The part about going through moss is a very interesting subject in its own right. Live moss (and the ecosystem in its rhizosphere) generates all kinds of phytochemicals that I'm sure are beneficial for orchids and other plants to utilize. A lot of these are probably found in kelp extracts too. It's a pretty common site to see orchids in association with mosses in a wide range of habitats. But from plowing through the literature, the amount of humates produced is very low except in a sphagnum bog where you have piles of dead moss decomposing under a layer of live moss.

One big effect of humates is their ability to chelate metals. From the toxicity tests I conduct with basic salts, it's apparent that this applies to all the major cations too (Ca, Mg, K, Na).

For instance I made up a "salty" synthetic effluent made up of basic salts like calcium sulfate, potassium chloride, sodium chloride, magnesium sulfate, sodium bicarbonate.. to mimic the composition of a pulp/paper mill effluent. Conductivity about 3000 useimens, hardness around 400ppm. 

The water fleas did not appreciate this water, and quit reproducing at exposures of roughly 1/3 strength of this material (diluted with a control culture water with a conductivity of about 250 useimen). They all died at 1/2 strength of this synthetic effluent.

I then added 20ppm of humic acid to this effluent and repeated the test. The water fleas all survived at full strength effluent and reproduced successfully at 80% effluent (a big improvement just by adding humic acid).

Adding humic acid to regular low conductivity culture water does not improve water flea reproduction, so it's not like the water fleas are gaining anything directly from humic acid, but the toxic action of the salts is reduced by the addition of humic acid. 

You didn't mention what type of fertilizer you are using or whether or not it has trace metals in it, but humic addition in your case may be facilitating the transport of trace metals like boron, iron, copper, manganese from both your tap water and the kelp extract. It could also be chelating " insulating" your plant from excess major ions in your fertilizer mix.


----------



## Rick (Jun 30, 2012)

BTW
20 ppm of humic acid turns the water a darker brown than most people brew tea.

So by the time you dilute humates to something barely noticeable color wise you are down to single digit ppms.


----------



## Rick (Jun 30, 2012)

Stone said:


> Absolutely. The humic acids apparently chealating and combining with all sorts of compounds and elements.
> Lance (Gonewild) recently said he checked runoff in Peru and that it barely registered on a ppm meter. But it must be there. Shows you how little they need and how effcient they are at sequestering!



Yup
There is also an interesting paradox to chelation, in that a chelating substance keeps a metal soluble and able to enter the organism, but on the other hand the internal metal is still not readily bioavailable on a cellular basis.

Depending on the nature of the chelator (in this case humic acid is a weak chelator compared to EDTA) and the nature of the organism to be able to digest the chelator, the increased availability to ingest the metal is often not matched with the ability of the organism to utilize this metal (or the metal forcing its way into unintended metabolic processes).

That's basically why chelation therapy for blood borne lead poisoning in humans works. The soluble bioactive lead in the bloodstream is "tied up" by the EDTA chelator so that it is not metabolically available, and then passed through the body.


----------



## cnycharles (Jun 30, 2012)

Rick said:


> That's basically why chelation therapy for blood borne lead poisoning in humans works. The soluble bioactive lead in the bloodstream is "tied up" by the EDTA chelator so that it is not metabolically available, and then passed through the body.



does this also work for mercury chelation?


----------



## Rick (Jun 30, 2012)

cnycharles said:


> does this also work for mercury chelation?



Mercury, silver, iron, and aluminum don't bind very well to EDTA (compared to zinc, nickel, cobalt, copper, cadmium, and lead. They bind very well to sulfide, producing an insoluble precipitate. This probably wouldn't be a good idea inside an organism, but that's what happens in anoxic sediments. Since the toxicity to aquatic organisms of mercury and silver is dependent on the TOC (Humic acid) concentration, then they must chelate at least partially to organic acids. But that's probably why mercury and silver are so toxic to aquatic animals since they seem to stay soluble, and are very bioreactive.

From what I've been reading/hearing is that the toxicity of mercury is closely tied to the amount of selenium available. Provided you have an equal amount of selenium in conjunction with a dose of mercury, then no toxic effects. (I wouldn't try this at home though!!)

Human medical chelation therapies is not my forte', so can't help you much in that arena.


----------



## moonlight (Dec 13, 2012)

Thanks for the info guys. Yes, humic acid can promote plants root growth & optimize the structure of soil


----------



## annab (Dec 14, 2012)

excuse me, this is a unknowable topic for me for my study . but I want say this.
some days ago i saw a documentary on bbc knowledge where they show a cavern in the Borneo full of bat and down on the floor of cavern is a mountain of bat poop ,I never saw so much life and microorganism and animals inside above and in all direction also if inside the cavern there is no sun and light.
in the jungle there is much oxygen and carbon dioxide because are trees everywhere and there are numerous animals and volatiles and all can do poop and piss in everyplace because they have no wc ,add to this also that numerous animal dead and going in decomposition ,well all of this aspect combined with very high level of humidity ,sweet temp and high level of sun irradiation ,is of course a very explosive mix for better plant grow. 
Now only fertilization ,for how much can be miraculous , can not replace all element in play in the jungle habitat.for me is much more important sunlight and moisture instead the fertilization . 
I know may be i said trivial things and already said too.
I think that beyond this there is no other,and we can speak for our about these aspect ,sometimes there are plant that growth strong and health without explanation ,without nothing ,why?if we could grow plant with this animus should be a good idea .
I don't know how can say "accanimento terapeutico"in english.well for me is to avoid for every one including plants.
anna


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 14, 2012)

it is true that there are many parts to supply for things to grow; and that commercial fertilizer doesn't supply all of everything all of the time. same thing with us; we can survive for long periods of time on a small amount of what we 'should' have, but things suffer. that's why it's such a struggle to found out what 'works' for orchids (and all plants). everyone's conditions and what goes into the plants are all different, and the plants are all different and need different things at different times. for the long haul it is good to watch the big items like you mention (water, air, temperature), and try to get a little of the other things here and there

talking here about the benefits of mosses for orchids is very revealing. here in upstate ny there are a lot of terrestrial native orchids because of many different habitats and elevations. new york state is at the crossroads of many different orchids; some here are at their southern or northern-most edge of their range, and in a number of cases, certain species will grow out of mounds of different mosses in different wetland areas... the interesting thing is that a number of them at their 'edge' in ny grow in moss, but in their 'normal' areas, they grow in forest or other soils, not moss. so, the moss must be able to provide a substantial range of nutrients for these very finicky plants to survive. ... and also, some will only grow in amongst certain species of moss, as only those have certain chemicals or fungal associates that will help that particular orchid to survive


----------



## Rick (Dec 15, 2012)

One thing I've picked up in checking out the 'mosses associated with low nutrient conditions' is that mosses frequently form associations with blue green algae, and are able to fix nitrogen.

So the orchid association with mosses may be more fundamental with regards to a macronutrient than complex with regard to unknown complexities of micronutrients and organic chemicals.


----------



## Rick (Dec 15, 2012)

annab said:


> some days ago i saw a documentary on bbc knowledge where they show a cavern in the Borneo full of bat and down on the floor of cavern is a mountain of bat poop ,I never saw so much life and microorganism and animals inside above and in all direction also if inside the cavern there is no sun and light.
> in the jungle there is much oxygen and carbon dioxide because are trees everywhere and there are numerous animals and volatiles and all can do poop and piss in everyplace because they have no wc ,add to this also that numerous animal dead and going in decomposition ,well all of this aspect combined with very high level of humidity ,sweet temp and high level of sun irradiation ,is of course a very explosive mix for better plant grow.
> Now only fertilization ,for how much can be miraculous , can not replace all element in play in the jungle habitat.for me is much more important sunlight and moisture instead the fertilization .



Anna You have noted what I think is an interesting paradox of the rainforest. From our perspective it seems full of life and extremely fertile. However, when you look in deep, it is full of life, but highly efficient. 

The organism pyramid is very steep. I recently linked a paper on the amount of insects living in epiphytic ferns. For every kilo of plant material there were only a few grams of insects. Yes there were many species and individual bugs, but the total mass was very small. This very small mass of insects (on many trees) then supports even a smaller mass of larger animals as you zoom back and look at the forest from a larger perspective. 

The solid matter supporting the trees/plants is a finite resource that is recycled into the plants over many years at a very efficient rate. All that piss and poop comes from the soil via the plants via the insects ...... and back to the plants in a continuous loop. It's not poured in from the outside.

The gasses (mainly CO2 and nitrogen) are a closer to infinite sink, since air can flow in and out of a forest around the world. But solar energy is the infinite resource that comes from outside the system and drives the whole thing.


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 15, 2012)

moonlight said:


> Thanks for the info guys. Yes, humic acid can promote plants root growth & optimize the structure of soil


Welcome to Slippertalk, moonlight. Why not tell us a little about yourself in the "Greetings and Salutations" section?


----------

