# Ph fertilizing solution and calculation N



## neno747 (Sep 2, 2011)

hello, if you have a fertilizing solution with ph too much low or too much high with which products it goes corrected.

If I use a idrosolubile fertilizer 20-20-20 with a objective to supply for a determined period 100 PPM of N I have always made this calculation, 

On 1 liter of water

grams of fertilizer x percentage of N/100/ water volume /0.001 

0,5 gr x 20%N/100/1lt/0,001 = 100 PPM

If the fertilizer that use is liquid as makes?

Thanks


----------



## NYEric (Sep 2, 2011)

any aquarium/ pet fish store will have chemicals to adjust pH.


----------



## neno747 (Sep 7, 2011)

NYEric said:


> any aquarium/ pet fish store will have chemicals to adjust pH.


Hello to all, living in Italy for me it is complicated to find seen MSU the shipping costs, now I am using with Dyna-grow 7-9-5 I have noticed that using 1/2tps/gal the Ph it comes down to 4 as I can make to raise it to 6,5?

The products that find in the stores of Aquarius not modify me the fertilizer?


----------



## Mathias (Sep 7, 2011)

neno747 said:


> Hello to all, living in Italy for me it is complicated to find seen MSU the shipping costs, now I am using with Dyna-grow 7-9-5 I have noticed that using 1/2tps/gal the Ph it comes down to 4 as I can make to raise it to 6,5?
> 
> The products that find in the stores of Aquarius not modify me the fertilizer?



If you want MSU then you can buy it from Akerne Orchids in Belgium. They sell it as "Rain mix": http://www.akerne-orchids.com/shop/index.php?route=product/category&path=40


----------



## Ray (Sep 7, 2011)

The pH adjusters tend to be simple acids and bases - and are safe for delicate fish - so should create no issues for plants.

As you have access to Dyna-Gro products, Pro-tekt can be used to increase the pH of the solution.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Sep 7, 2011)

Do not use "pH up" from an aquarium store...it contains NaOH. To raise pH, just use a little Pro-Tekt.


----------



## gonewild (Sep 7, 2011)

Rather than worry about the pH of the fertilizer solution measure the water that comes out the bottom of the pot the day after you apply the fertilizer. Then you will know what the actual media environment, that is what effects the plants growth.


----------



## neno747 (Sep 8, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Rather than worry about the pH of the fertilizer solution measure the water that comes out the bottom of the pot the day after you apply the fertilizer. Then you will know what the actual media environment, that is what effects the plants growth.



How is made this measure?

Thanks


----------



## gonewild (Sep 8, 2011)

neno747 said:


> How is made this measure?
> 
> Thanks



It is simple.
Pick up the pot and tip it so that the drain hole is at the lowest point and usually some water will run out. That water is your sample that will tell you what your plants roots are working with to grow. Maybe you have to wait a little while for gravity to help get the water out or rapidly move the plant up and down to "shake" out the water. Catch this water in a cup and then measure this sample. 

You won't get very much water out of one pot so collect a small sample out of how ever many pots it takes to give enough to measure. By using many different pots you will get an average sample of all the plants in your collection.

Most of the time the media in the pots has enough water at the bottom to get a sample the day after the fertilizer was applied but if not take the sample sooner.


----------



## neno747 (Sep 8, 2011)

Hello Gonewild thanks for l' aid, I have understood the procedure, but as I can know what eats the plant measuring the ph?


----------



## gonewild (Sep 8, 2011)

neno747 said:


> but as I can know what eats the plant measuring the ph?



I don't quite understand the question. I think the translator did not quite get it correct.

Please try to ask using a different sentence or explain what you want to know.


----------



## neno747 (Sep 9, 2011)

gonewild said:


> I don't quite understand the question. I think the translator did not quite get it correct.
> 
> Please try to ask using a different sentence or explain what you want to know.



Hello, sorry , it is not easy for me to understand and translator often does not translate the sense. I fertilize with dyna-grow always 7-9-5 to 100 ppm N, I have asked information because I have measured fertilizer + RO and with dyna-grow measure PH 4 Me it has been said to carry ph to 6.6 I thought to use produced for Aquarius. You have tried to explain me to recover water POTof you drain from you go yourself and you have understood, but on this water I must measure tds or ec or ph in order to understand what consumes the plant?


----------



## gonewild (Sep 9, 2011)

Yes the translators often make some very humorous translations!
But now I understand your question.

Measure both ppm and pH from the sample from the bottom of the pot.
That sample will tell you what the conditions in the root area are.

If the ppm is too high then you have the option of using less fertilizer or leaching the media with pure water.

If the pH is not correct then you can do something to improve it.

Just because your freshly mixed fertilizer solution has a low pH does not mean that it remains like that after it enters the media in the pot.

Maybe you have some limestone on the top of the media and that changes the pH of the fertilizer as it enter the pot? Things like this can effect the measurements.

Tell me if you don't understand after the translation.


----------



## neno747 (Sep 9, 2011)

Ok understood...

you are much patient, thanks...

mine mix is made with chc, me does not remain water in the bottom of the pot the day after, can measure the water champion quickly after to have bathed?


----------



## gonewild (Sep 9, 2011)

neno747 said:


> Ok understood...
> 
> you are much patient, thanks...
> 
> mine mix is made with chc, me does not remain water in the bottom of the pot the day after, can measure the water champion quickly after to have bathed?



An option could be to squeeze some of the water out of the chc for the sample.


----------



## neno747 (Sep 9, 2011)

Ok thanks, to how much is advised tds to solution for fertilizer every time that I bathe and in the event solution ph or too much lowland with what is raised?


----------



## gonewild (Sep 9, 2011)

No you do not need to test every time. Only test to learn what the conditions are. 

After you test you decide if you need to make any changes.
Maybe everything is perfect?

When you are happy with the conditions maybe you never need to test again, unless you change your culture methods.

Post the results of your tests here on SlipperTalk and as a group we can give you advice for the best way to make adjustments.


----------



## NYEric (Sep 9, 2011)

You have to understand that the water washing through does not tell you what the plant is consuming. It is probably the exact same, mineral/pH, etc., when you introduce the fertilizer as what is running out.


----------



## Ozpaph (Sep 10, 2011)

Could you sit a plant (in its mix and pot) in a plastic container and fertilize it till a cm or 2 collects in the container, wait an hour, then do the ppm and pH??


----------



## Rick (Sep 10, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Could you sit a plant (in its mix and pot) in a plastic container and fertilize it till a cm or 2 collects in the container, wait an hour, then do the ppm and pH??



Yes, or if its' a single hole pot then plug the hole for a while and let it drain. But also the longer you wait, the pH can drift as the fluid comes in gas equilibrium to the outside air. (TDS is very conservative and will not change much over time).

If you do the catch pan method, then need to minimize the size of the pan to just barely fit the pot. The main thing is you don't want to dilute the first flush pot drip water with lots of your fertilizer mix.

Whatever you do you need to standardize the method for repeatable results.

The method that Lance is recommending (collecting pot drippage) is pretty much what I've read from instructions from County extension agriculture services. So the method is standardized for many years in the general agricultural community. The more you deviate from it, the less you have directly comparable results to the wider community.


----------



## Rick (Sep 10, 2011)

NYEric said:


> You have to understand that the water washing through does not tell you what the plant is consuming. It is probably the exact same, mineral/pH, etc., when you introduce the fertilizer as what is running out.




Leaf content analysis is the best way to tell you what the plant is consuming. And this may have much different values than what you are putting into the pot. But getting leaves analyzed is slow, relatively expensive, and you may run out of plant to analyze if its small.

However nutrient uptake is based a lot on environmental pH. So soil pH may be used as kind of a surrogate for understanding nutrient uptake. This is fast and cheap to do.


----------



## Ray (Sep 10, 2011)

Rick said:


> Leaf content analysis is the best way to tell you what the plant is consuming..


What the plant is consuming, yes. What the plant needs, no.

Plants have "pumps" that take in and store certain nutrients in the vacuoles, in case of a "rainy day", even if there is no deficit in the plant or its growing environment. If I remember correctly, phosphorus and boron, among others, fall in that category. So...a leaf tissue analysis will show you a greater level of those than the plant truly needs.


----------



## Rick (Sep 10, 2011)

Ray said:


> What the plant is consuming, yes. What the plant needs, no.
> 
> Plants have "pumps" that take in and store certain nutrients in the vacuoles, in case of a "rainy day", even if there is no deficit in the plant or its growing environment. If I remember correctly, phosphorus and boron, among others, fall in that category. So...a leaf tissue analysis will show you a greater level of those than the plant truly needs.



Potassium falls into this same category, but that is the point I've been advocating in several threads. In the case of K there generally is a scarcity in the environment so plants are super efficient at pumping K. If you supply lots of K, with reduced amounts of Ca and Mg, plants will have no control over the amount of K they uptake and end up with problems. With a normal low K high Ca/Mg environment plants have to "fight" for their K and much less prone to over dose. Same for bark/CHC substrates. When K is supplied without excess Ca, the "ion exchange" capacity of the bark is to expel divalent cations in favor of uptake of monovalent ions. I believe this is the basis of what people call "salt burn" or "old stale mix" that requires frequent replacement.


----------



## Rick (Sep 10, 2011)

Ray said:


> What the plant is consuming, yes. What the plant needs, no.



This is also perfectly true in that you compare what is in the leaves compared to a reference of good health (which includes the ability to withstand disease and add growths for multiple years). Also the point I have been making in several threads is that the nutrient priority of perennial rainforest plants from leaf analysis data is very different from what they can end up with in artificial culture.

The analogy is like looking at an obese individual, declaring that the optimal health norm, and saying that all human beings require high levels of sugar and fat in their diets.


----------



## Ozpaph (Sep 10, 2011)

Rick said:


> The method that Lance is recommending (collecting pot drippage) is pretty much what I've read from instructions from County extension agriculture services. So the method is standardized for many years in the general agricultural community. The more you deviate from it, the less you have directly comparable results to the wider community.



Do you have a link to the methodology and the results, please? I'd like to do it correctly.


----------



## chrismende (Sep 11, 2011)

This thread is great, you guys! I'm just at the moment of realizing I want to really study this plant science! Go to school! Yee hah!


----------



## Rick (Sep 11, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Do you have a link to the methodology and the results, please? I'd like to do it correctly.



It will take some digging since its awhile that I saw it. Locational memory tapering off since 50

May also have been a printed handout from a lecture with an Ag agent that's in our O society.

Also an AOS judge from the Atlanta center (David Mellard) (who works in waste water science like me) pieced together a similar methodology and published it in the general orchid press too (or maybe in the newsletter of one of the two Atlanta orchid societies:sob

I'll dig at this end. Try some google searches at your end too. I would expect lots of independent Australian agriculture activity going on too.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNFLqcd5wE-P6ih3GSlFIQiKiMZkug&cad=rja


Also try this link http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk_id=7351#Testing


There's also a bunch of info from Bill Argo, and several of the links to Bill Argo documents refer back to Ray


----------



## gonewild (Sep 11, 2011)

Leaf tissue analysis is way to complicated and expensive for hobby growers. 

Leaf analysis is great if you know how to interpret the results. If not it can cause more confusion. You can't just have a test done and compare the results with a chart. There are no charts that would apply to the plants in your collection. 

The chemical content of a healthy leaf growing under one set of conditions will greatly differ from the same plant growing under different conditions.
So to be able to utilize leaf analysis correctly you would need to make regular tests over an extended period of time, perhaps once a month for a year? That series of tests might establish a baseline level for the correct levels in leaf tissue. Then you could do further tests and compare the results to your baseline. Unless you do this relying on tissue analysis will give you a false perception of what fertilizer to use and when. 

Even if you are able to determine by leaf analysis that your plants have an imbalance of nutrients in the tissues how many home growers have the equipment or knowledge to make the corrections without messing up the balance of another nutrient?

If a grower wants to rely on leaf tissue analysis to evaluate the plants health then they should also consider root and stem tissue analysis. Orchid growers don't need to go there unless you want to turn the orchid collection into a science project.


----------



## Rick (Sep 11, 2011)

gonewild said:


> The chemical content of a healthy leaf growing under one set of conditions will greatly differ from the same plant growing under different conditions.
> 
> If a grower wants to rely on leaf tissue analysis to evaluate the plants health then they should also consider root and stem tissue analysis. Orchid growers don't need to go there unless you want to turn the orchid collection into a science project.




From going to both the commercial ag literature and rainforest research literature this is not true.

Whether you are looking at wheat/corn/mahogany/pecans/coffee/rice/sphagnum moss/kelp...the relative proportions of primary nutrients (and even many micronutrients is very similar in healthy plants, and not that variable under different growing conditions. What appears to be most variable is the definition of "healthy". 

What has happened when plants go commercial is that the definition of "healthy" as become synonymous with "obese". And as it turns out with plants, being obese has as many inherent health issues as we see in humans. But with 50% of the US (human) population being overweight, society has redefined healthy as overweight, and high rates of conditions like diabetes and heart disease as normal.

Compared to commercial orchid production, large luxuriant glossy plants that last only 3 years are considered healthy, and conditions like Erwinia rots and rots after evening watering are considered normal. 

Many of our jungle adventurers (included you Lance) have shown us many pictures of jungle plants that put our GH plants to shame. Most of these awesome specimen plants are probably older than the average length of time it takes most of us to kill plants in our GH's. Talking to experienced orchid judges it would seem that the bulk of plants that receive quality awards are dead after just a few years of getting awarded, and in review of awards records, the size of awarded flowers hasn't really got drastically better than for flowers of wild plants.

So I'm just not buying it that using commercial wheat production methods is the way to grow orchids.


----------



## gonewild (Sep 11, 2011)

Rick said:


> From going to both the commercial ag literature and rainforest research literature this is not true.
> 
> So I'm just not buying it that using commercial wheat production methods is the way to grow orchids.




In your first line you disagree with my point and in your last line you agree?

Without going to commercial ag literature I can tell you from my past experiences as an ag consultant (long ago) doing fertility tests and monitoring plant growth on a daily basis that there is a difference in the tissue content depending on growing conditions. I can't prove it with published literature but I know it. The difference may seem insignificant when looking at charts but if you live with and look closely at the plants you can see the difference as well. Just my opinion.

But putting that small difference aside I still don't think many home orchid growers can utilize the data from leaf tissue analysis to improve their plants health. It is just to difficult to interpret and react to. 

Based on your last statement I think we agree completely?


----------



## Rick (Sep 11, 2011)

I can understand the confusion.

"Wheat production" is my shorthand version of culture based on 6-8 month, seed to harvest growing strategy.  

Pecan production is much more like orchid culture. Same plant year after year. Feeding for fruit/flower production and limited growth. Compared to wheat almost no fertilization is necessary. 

What I'm finding surprising while digging through ag literature is that the basic leaf tissue nutrient levels are the same for healthy wheat as well as healthy pecans. The growing conditions are very different, but plants is plants, and the same chart for healthy wheat is really no different that the chart for healthy pecan trees for what to expect for healthy plants. 

Tweaking for soil chemistries and adding nutrients is a site specific exercise, and generally a second set of analysis. This is where things really seem to get crazy and almost impossible to get "right" by use of a cohesive science. 

It seems we go through endless exercises going from the bottom up for every growing condition possible, one nutrient at a time, while plants all seem to end up universally the same on a physiological basis. So in some ways leaf analysis is a "check" to see if you got your math right or measured the correct variables for the soil chemistry exercise. If the plant numbers aren't good then go back to the drawing board.


----------



## Rick (Sep 11, 2011)

Maybe an example would help.

One of my first paphs was a blooming size lowii and got it in 2001/2002.

The plant put on 2-5 growths a year for the first four or so years and put out 2-3 spikes a year, often with 5 flowers per spike. I thought this plant was indestructible. How much healthier could it get?

After 5 years, it started loosing older leaves and growths to rot each time it tried to add a new growth. It also experienced some other non Erwinia type rots. It kept blooming, but on smaller and smaller growths. Couldn't keep descent roots on it no matter how frequently or the type of media it went into, or how much Pro tekt I poured on it.

It went from a peak of about 10 growths to 2 in 2-3 years. The last growth crapped out about a year or so ago.

Convention would say the plant succumbed to a variety of bacterial or fungal diseases. Looking back with newer knowledge I'm pretty sure went down in flames from potassium overdose.

I have plenty of other examples like it, and several plants in recovery mode as an alternative view from going down in flames.

I personally haven't got the leaf analysis thing going yet, but now would be a good time to get some baselines.


----------



## Ray (Sep 12, 2011)

{_This sort of discussion is precisely why I love this forum!_}

A lot of this jives nicely with stuff Bill Argo shared with me. Specifically, he stated that tissue analysis aren't of THAT much value because they don't vary much, except in the cases of extreme deficiencies, making the results obvious.

I think the obesity-in-humans analogy may be headed in the right direction. I have no idea if it's a potassium issue specifically, but time and time again in animals, it has been found that while a "rich" diet certainly puts on the mass, it's a moderate one that leads to long-term health. So why not plants, too?

I grew my entire collection for years with Dyna-Gro "Grow" (7-9-5) at about 50 ppm N, and they grew well and flowered nicely. When I switched to the Greencare RO Orchid Special fertilizer (13-3-15) at 125 ppm N, I noticed much better growth and flowering - probably more overall mass of nutrients, coupled the the added Ca and Mg. After about 5 years though, I started to see a decrease in flowering. Don't forget I water fairly frequently, and have a lot of my plants in s/h pots with a reservoir, so am giving my plants a lot more "meals" than some.

About 9 months ago, I cut my feeding concentration to about 75-85 ppm N (same fertilizer) and I have had plants bloom that had not done so for a couple of years - lots of growths, few blossoms.


----------



## Rick (Sep 12, 2011)

I think I'm getting frustrated looking at the system one variable at a time in a linear fashion while the true system is really a bunch of interconnected parts working in many directions. One week we look at N, then NPK, then Ca/Mg (as if they were independent of K), then pH, then TDS (as if this was separate from NPKCaMg), and then Silicates, and going back to N.:sob::sob:

Looking at the pH - bioavailability charts, the "optimal" pH for one nutrient is not the same as the for all the others. Nitrogen optimal pH also depends on the form of nitrogen (nitrates vs urea) you are using. K and Na doesn't care what pH it is!! and so it goes on.

I guess I'm thinking that leaf content has the potential to give you a holistic, big picture, of what the plant is experiencing. True it doesn't tell you how to fix it if it doesn't match a baseline data set, but tells you if the selected individual variables you are dinking with is getting in the right direction. 

pH is also a holistic black box, but as noted above doesn't cover some key nutrients and antagonists.

The world is always looking for a simple, single unifying principle, but we ain't there yet for hobbiest orchid growing.


----------



## gonewild (Sep 12, 2011)

Rick, I really like your ideas about potassium. Based simply on that one concept that varies from the normal thoughts, leaf analysis would not tell you much of value. True the leaf analysis will tell you if you have all the parts or not but it is not going to answer the question of whether there is too much or not enough for the particular plant you are growing. Like you said (I think you said it) any charts are going to have been done for commercial rapid growth (fat) and that is not likely the healthy growth rate desired for an orchid collection that should live for generations. 

Most young living things require a huge diet of high protein content to grow fast enough to survive. But as the individuals mature their diet requirements change and normally become less in bulk and protein. Plants are not unlike animals in that requirement for long term survival. 

Leaf analysis is far more useful for growing wheat than your pecans. 
I think we are saying different things but we actually agree.


----------



## Rick (Sep 13, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Leaf analysis is far more useful for growing wheat than your pecans.
> I think we are saying different things but we actually agree.



Yes pretty close, but I looked up a Ag extension website for Georgia Pecan growers, and they really advocate the leaf analysis.

They have a whole protocol for selecting the right leaflet and comparison to baseline optimal concentrations.

Generally there is no fertilization for pecan groves, but management seems to revolve around what they called the "forage" plants growing under the trees.

This seemed to be more analagous to fertilizing by leaf litter composition levels of nutrients.


----------

