# Fertilizer discussion



## Gcroz (May 8, 2012)

I'm always on the lookout for a better fertilizer!

I've mentioned previously I use a Dyna-Gro Grow formula/ Pro-Tekt/ Super Thrive combination that seems to work very well for the Phals, Catts, and others in the greenhouse. It works ok for the paphs and phrags, but I think it could be better.

As for water, I use well water that is very clean, except for radon and uranium (maybe my plants glow in the dark?:evil.

So, what do others do for fertilizer combinations? I purchased some MSU, but I want to use up the Dyna-Gro before I try that. What do people think about MSU?


----------



## NYEric (May 8, 2012)

i was using MSU w/ R.O. water; with Superthrive and Proteck added plus epson salts. I am trying the K-light diet, even though K is supposed to promote root growth , so I switched to a low K fertilizer (Rays?) and reduce the Proteck.


----------



## Rick (May 8, 2012)

I'd go through all the threads on K lite Gcroz.

Otherwise you would be reinventing the wheel with this thread.

The original MSU is passe' after the last years worth of fert discusions.


----------



## Rick (May 8, 2012)

NYEric said:


> i was using MSU w/ R.O. water; with Superthrive and Proteck added plus epson salts. I am trying the K-light diet, even though K is supposed to promote root growth , so I switched to a low K fertilizer (Rays?) and reduce the Proteck.



Proteck is defeating the purpose of low K Eric.

I wouldn't mind adding a source of silicates but I'd probably prefer to use plain old sodium silicate (as for concrete sealer) rather than potassium silicate of Protect.

Yes K can help with root growth, but K-lite still has plenty of K to handle that job. Just about everything is toxic at high enough concentrations. Even water is toxic at high enough concentrations. So we need to get away from the idea that "if a little helps some, a lot will help even more".


----------



## Gcroz (May 8, 2012)

Wow, read the K-lite info and feel like I need to go back to school for a refresher course! Seems promising, but will need to do a test first in my greenhouse to see for myself. Anyone use it with Aussie Gold for medium?


----------



## Stone (May 8, 2012)

All sorts of people use all sorts of fert. (Miracle grow, Phostrogen, Magamp, Hydroponic formulations, Osmocote, Macrocote, bonemeal, blood&bone, fish, blah, blah, and have success with all of them. The important thing is to not use too much/often and get the balance between nutrients right. So you need to know what it SHOULD be doing and what its REALLY doing.


----------



## Leo Schordje (May 9, 2012)

You know at first I was skeptical about the K-Lite discussions. My favorite USDA plant physiologist at first dismissed it in our private discussions. Potassium is such a mobile ion, very soluble, at first glance one wouldn't think you could over do K, it would flush away with the next watering. Then my USDA plant physiologist did some digging. Guess what, the K-lite idea has validity. It may still need formal testing, but the concept is sound. Plants really only need roughly 2% K if the Nitrogen is at about 12%. Excess Potassium (K) can block uptake of Calcium and Magnesium. If one doesn't compensate by adding excess Ca and Mg in some way, you can end up with a deficiency of these ions. 

Now I got to figure out what to do with 2 bags, 25 lbs each of MSU Orchid Special before I buy my first bag of K-Lite. 

Basically, over my 30+ years of orchid growing, the old fertilizers were problematic, often had problems from imbalances, the best of the old formulas was Mira-Acid. Then the Peter's Professional series and Dyna-Gro came out, and I saw visible improvements in my plants as soon as I made the switch. Then I went to MSU and there was a dramatic improvement in my orchids. I was sold. MSU was the end all as far as I was concerned. But while everything is better than before, I still don't have the bloom quantity I want. 

So enter K-Lite. The theory sounds great, and I believe I will start a trial with it this summer. Before opening my next bag of MSU Orchid Special. But what to do with 50 lbs of the old stuff?

To be honest, the MSU Orchid Special formulations are VERY GOOD formulations, a vast improvement over a 10-10-10 fertilizer. BUT, it does look like the K-Lite formula will prove to be even BETTER.


----------



## Rick (May 9, 2012)

Leo Schordje said:


> Now I got to figure out what to do with 2 bags, 25 lbs each of MSU Orchid Special before I buy my first bag of K-Lite.



Leo

Before Bill Argo actually formulated the first batch of Klite, I had a work around that "diluted" MSU with calcium nitrate and epsom salts. I did this for about 6 or so months before getting my first batch of the official stuff.

Before K lite I was using 1/8tsp (per gal) MSU for pure water, 1/8 tsp of CaNitrate and 1/4 tsp of Epsom salt.

If I remember that fed N at roughly 50ppm. It took K down to about 3% but Ca and Mg were elevated relative to K.

I think several ST members are in the same boat as you with lots of regular MSU left and doing the above.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 9, 2012)

Rick said:


> ...I think several ST members are in the same boat as you with lots of regular MSU left and doing the above.



Yup.


----------



## abax (May 10, 2012)

I have about 25 lbs. or so of Jack's Pro w/ca mag and I'm
going to use it in my garden and on my roses. After about
two months or so of K-Lite, my plants are beginning to show significant improvement in growth, number of blooms and better looking leaves. I'm very pleased with it so far.


----------



## mormodes (May 10, 2012)

Well either Rick or Leo or both of you should write an article for 'Orchids'. I floated the idea to the publications committee, but at that time the K-Lite thread was still developing and there was a lot of back and forth going on. Since you both, either together or separately, have the science to back your opinions I'm sure the general public would want it concisely spelled out without having to wade through the thread. Let either me or Greg Allikas know.


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2012)

mormodes said:


> Well either Rick or Leo or both of you should write an article for 'Orchids'. I floated the idea to the publications committee, but at that time the K-Lite thread was still developing and there was a lot of back and forth going on. Since you both, either together or separately, have the science to back your opinions I'm sure the general public would want it concisely spelled out without having to wade through the thread. Let either me or Greg Allikas know.



I have an article about 3/4 completed. Actually the draft was complete, but lots of comments came back from the initial reviewers, so I want to take some more time with it. Maybe I'll push to get it done in June.


----------



## NYEric (May 10, 2012)

Rick said:


> Proteck is defeating the purpose of low K Eric.



But, I only use a teeny tiny amount!


----------



## mormodes (May 10, 2012)

Rick said:


> I have an article about 3/4 completed. Actually the draft was complete, but lots of comments came back from the initial reviewers, so I want to take some more time with it. Maybe I'll push to get it done in June.



I love you madly. Thank you! Thank you!


----------



## NYEric (May 10, 2012)




----------



## Rick (May 10, 2012)

NYEric said:


> But, I only use a teeny tiny amount!




Really????

You promise????

Sometimes it's hard to imagine you do anything in a small way Ericoke:oke:


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2012)

mormodes said:


> I love you madly. Thank you! Thank you!



Can you PM me:wink:


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2012)

Rick, if I can look up anything in the "mineral Nutrition" or "Epiphytes" books as backup, let me know.


----------



## Leo Schordje (May 15, 2012)

Rick 
I am glad you are working on the article, you are the one who solidified the idea, and Ray of course, and Bill Argo for being willing to make it. I am looking forward to seeing the article. 
Leo


----------



## The Orchid Boy (Jan 16, 2013)

*Sorry to bring up an old thread but...*

Sorry to bring up an old thread but...

Where can I find the article? Was it ever completed? If not, I'd still love to read just the draft of it.


----------



## abax (Jan 17, 2013)

Give the man time. Technical writing is hard to get just right and understandable for the lay person...also proof read and corrected...also some editing required as well. All this takes time. Sometimes up to a 
year or so to go through the whole process once the paper is in draft form.


----------



## Rick (Jan 17, 2013)

I got a notice last week that it should be in the March issue of Orchids.

But with the last year of threads and postings on this site, I don't know how much more you'll get out of the article:wink:


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 17, 2013)

Rick said:


> Really????
> 
> You promise????
> 
> Sometimes it's hard to imagine you do anything in a small way Ericoke:oke:



eric cooks in a small way, just look at all the orchids on the stove :rollhappy:

I still think that the klite will need a little more phosphorus, or at least with some species that grow/spike very quickly these plants (not just orchids) usually do better if they have more phosphorus. I know many have been debunking the 'phosphorus is needed for flowering' thing that was promoted for years, but of course klite has a relatively tiny amount of phosphorus compared to the balanced ferts; also there is a minimal amount that is necessary, and as was mentioned earlier in the thread, more (lots more) doesn't mean better


----------



## wjs2nd (Jan 17, 2013)

Hmmm, to throw a wrench into everything. According to OL they just use their "Green Jungle" fertilizer mix for everything. It is 1-0-1 and was developed for RO/rain water. They use it every third watering. I believe they supplement their potting mixes, but I'm not positive, nor do I know with what.


----------



## keithrs (Jan 17, 2013)

wjs2nd said:


> Hmmm, to throw a wrench into everything. According to OL they just use their "Green Jungle" fertilizer mix for everything. It is 1-0-1 and was developed for RO/rain water. They use it every third watering. I believe they supplement their potting mixes, but I'm not positive, nor do I know with what.



I talk with Jerry a while back about it... It's just MSU with a couple other things added to it.


----------



## Rick (Jan 17, 2013)

wjs2nd said:


> Hmmm, to throw a wrench into everything. According to OL they just use their "Green Jungle" fertilizer mix for everything. It is 1-0-1 and was developed for RO/rain water. They use it every third watering. I believe they supplement their potting mixes, but I'm not positive, nor do I know with what.



Not neccessarily.

0 does not neccesarily mean 0 but less than 1.0. So could be a small amount of P.

It also falls right in line with just about everything we've been talking about for K lite. That it really takes VERY little fert to get great results.

I don't know what the dose rate is (Xamt per gal) or target Nppm is, but if the material is only 1% N then you are mostly buying water, and to get the comparable amount of N to MSU you would have to dose 12-13 times higher. But if you dosed at the same 1/2 to1tsp/gal dose we use for K lite, then you would be applying very little fert. Especially if you only did it once every 3 weeks, and flushed with non fert water several times in between.

There's no doubt that things grow/bloom well at OL, so maybe just more proof it doesn't take a lot of NPK.

The NPK values for Green Jungle are comparable to many other "organic" ferts on the market including kelp extracts, bat guanno.....


----------



## wjs2nd (Jan 17, 2013)

Hmmm, MSU with other things. Did Jerry say what else? 
The 0-1-0 was what I could find online. Not a lot of info about Green Jungle.

Rick: That is why I brought this up. Green Jungle, no matter what it is, is low in P and OL has great results.


----------



## keithrs (Jan 17, 2013)

wjs2nd said:


> Hmmm, MSU with other things. Did Jerry say what else?
> The 0-1-0 was what I could find online. Not a lot of info about Green Jungle.
> 
> Rick: That is why I brought this up. Green Jungle, no matter what it is, is low in P and OL has great results.



He did but I don't exactly remember.... One thing was a wetting agent.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jan 17, 2013)

Rick said:


> I got a notice last week that it should be in the March issue of Orchids.
> 
> But with the last year of threads and postings on this site, I don't know how much more you'll get out of the article:wink:


 
It will be great to read a summary of all the discussion here. Plus sharing it with others outside this forum. In advance, Thanks, Rick!


----------



## keithrs (Jan 17, 2013)

Rick said:


> Not neccessarily.
> 
> 0 does not neccesarily mean 0 but less than 1.0. So could be a small amount of P.
> 
> ...



Dose rate is 2 tbs/gal.


----------



## terryros (Jan 17, 2013)

The exact formula for Green Jungle is 1.28 N, 0.48 P, and 1.48 K. Jerry based this formula on studies that he had made in various natural habitats around the world. Obviously, other trace elements are there as well. They usually feed at about 100 ppm N. I used Green Jungle for several years with success at 50 ppm but I decided the rationale for K-Lite made too much sense not to give it a try. I still use 50 ppm N with the K-Lite. I think we know that the benefits of low K is more of a longer term benefit but I can say that all of my plants are growing and blooming just fine right now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## wjs2nd (Jan 18, 2013)

Thanks Terry!


----------



## Brabantia (Jan 18, 2013)

terryros said:


> The exact formula for Green Jungle is 1.28 N, 0.48 P, and 1.48 K. Jerry based this formula on studies that he had made in various natural habitats around the world. Obviously, other trace elements are there as well. They usually feed at about 100 ppm N. I used Green Jungle for several years with success at 50 ppm but I decided the rationale for K-Lite made too much sense not to give it a try. I still use 50 ppm N with the K-Lite. I think we know that the benefits of low K is more of a longer term benefit but I can say that all of my plants are growing and blooming just fine right now


.

And before with the Green Jungle are there blooming? Have you now more or less flowers?


----------



## terryros (Jan 18, 2013)

I am afraid that I did not change just one variable. Over this last two years I have converted to LED lighting, sphagnum moss as a growing medium, and am also using Kelpmax intermittently. So, when I say that everything is growing and blooming better now than several years ago, I can't give K-Lite all the credit, but it is certainly not showing any of the deficiencies that we might have worried about at the beginning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Ray (Jan 19, 2013)

terryros said:


> The exact formula for Green Jungle is 1.28 N, 0.48 P, and 1.48 K. Jerry based this formula on studies that he had made in various natural habitats around the world. Obviously, other trace elements are there as well. They usually feed at about 100 ppm N. I used Green Jungle for several years with success at 50 ppm but I decided the rationale for K-Lite made too much sense not to give it a try. I still use 50 ppm N with the K-Lite. I think we know that the benefits of low K is more of a longer term benefit but I can say that all of my plants are growing and blooming just fine right now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



If you multiply that Green Jungle formula x 10, you basically have the MSU RO formula with some added phosphorus (13-5-15 versus 13-3-15).

My understanding of the testing of "tank water" captured by bromeliads, and "trunk flow" from trees bearing epiphytes indicates the P & K are much lower than Jerry has surmised. AND, the overall concentration of nutrients tends to be well below that provided by 100 ppm N solutions - of course it is a pretty much constant supply in those environments, compared to the periodic applications we provide.

I think at the K-Lite concept is solid, and I am becoming less wary of deficiencies by the day (almost), but I am also of the opinion that nutrition is WAY down the plant "Maslow's hierarchy" of needs, and that an individual's success in orchid growing has far less to do with nutrition than many other factors. I am reasonably sure most folks here grasp that - and many do well enough that the "tweaking" of nutrients and additives is a reasonable experiment - but I'm afraid others may view this as a solution to their cultural issues, which it certainly is not.


----------



## Rick (Jan 19, 2013)

Ray said:


> My understanding of the testing of "tank water" captured by bromeliads, and "trunk flow" from trees bearing epiphytes indicates the P & K are much lower than Jerry has surmised. AND, the overall concentration of nutrients tends to be well below that provided by 100 ppm N solutions
> .



That's why it appears that our past feeding regimes are really toxicity trials rather than feeding trials.

I've been conducting roughly 1000 toxicity tests a year (since 1995) with a wide range of aquatic organisms (including algae), and have observed that virtually every natural substance is both a nutrient and a toxicant at some level. That level is also based on the relative amount of that substance in the environment. I guess the majority of tests have a humped shaped response curve. A little helps, but a lot hurts.

But in the last several years I've been tracking the interactions of various substances that organisms use, and its like a spiderweb of interactions. You pull or push on one spot,and it forces a change to some other part of the web.

When we feed fertilizers at levels much higher than in nature, I believe these "deficiencies" are these interconnected pushes and pulls on that web.


----------



## Ray (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm right there with you, Rick.

I recall hearing of a trial at a large seed producer that showed symptoms of an immense iron deficiency in corn, when in reality, it was an overdose of phosphorus!


----------



## Rick (Jan 19, 2013)

Ray said:


> I'm right there with you, Rick.
> 
> I recall hearing of a trial at a large seed producer that showed symptoms of an immense iron deficiency in corn, when in reality, it was an overdose of phosphorus!


Ya and corn is a completely domesticated human developed species made to handle the high nutrient environment that we trail around us.


----------



## gonewild (Jan 19, 2013)

Wonder why recommendations have been to use excessive amounts of nutrients?

The best way to sell fertilizer is to recommend a application rate double what is needed in reality. the difference between one tsp per gallon and one half tsp per gallon does not seem like much, but to the chemical company it is double sales volume. Most fertility trials have been done or funded by chemical companies so what can we expect? Results are interpreted and skewed towards more profits.

More is better? :rollhappy:


----------



## Ray (Jan 19, 2013)

I think that we should also consider that the vast majority of fertilizers are produced with terrestrial plants in mind, that they often do use nutrients at a greater rate due to the faster growth rate, and that soils, having a much greater CEC, can trap the nutrients applied.


----------



## Rick (Jan 19, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Wonder why recommendations have been to use excessive amounts of nutrients?
> 
> Most fertility trials have been done or funded by chemical companies so what can we expect?.
> 
> More is better? :rollhappy:



I brought this up initially and one should note that 99% of fertilizer trials and plant research in general is conducted on domesticated plants being grown for food. And even the bulk of that is corn, wheat, and rice. The first strong clue I found on K antagonism was actually a paper on rice physiology. 

Yes dollars are a motive, but primarily at the crop (food production) end.

If you Google for info on plant nutrition and fertilizer use you get virtually nothing on orchids. The few bits and pieces you get are done for mass hybrid culture for the bloom and toss market. Virtually all the focus goes into food crops. Ex situ orchid nutrition has mostly been piggy backing on the cut flower market, which has been piggy backing on the food crop science. Granted it hasn't been a total bust by the time it filtered down to orchid culture, but it looks like the "orchids are corn" assumption has its shortcomings.

To get down to the insitu orchid data took some pretty serious digging since these are almost purely academic science articles. Getting $ for serious jungle research is a battle.


----------



## terryros (Jan 19, 2013)

Rick and Ray - using K-Lite at 50 ppm N means a reduction in "strength" of the other nutrients as well. I also periodically monitor the effluent from watered pots and don't let it get over 0.5 (forgetting the units). There should still be enough of trace elements with this approach? Also, because Ray said that KelpMax has some potassium, I have been reducing the K-Lite to about 35 ppm N during the weeks I use the KelpMax. Does this risk trace element deficiency during this period? I grow in pure sphagnum so I suspect the answer is "no" and I am not seeing any signs of deficiency in any leaves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Ray (Jan 20, 2013)

Just my two cents Terry, but I don't think we have any definitive data on what constitutes a deficiency, adequacy, or excess for orchids with most nutrients - probably less so on the trace elements.

Tissue data shows the accumulation of nutrients, but tells little, if anything, about how rapidly they must be taken up, or what the "right" level is. Likewise, sampling of the microcosm the plants live in tells us what-, and how much (or little) is there, but says nothing about the demands of the plant.

If we look at the K-Lite formula, applied at 50 pm N, this is what we're contributing:

N  50 ppm
P2O5 5
K2O 5
Ca 39
Mg 12
Fe 445 ppb
Mn 310
Zn 310
Cu 155
B 116
Mo 78


----------



## terryros (Jan 20, 2013)

I infer that your best guess is that there is still enough of everything at 50 ppm N (and maybe even lower), meaning that we probably give an excess of everything when we feed most complete fertilizers at 100-150 ppm N.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Rick (Jan 20, 2013)

terryros said:


> I infer that your best guess is that there is still enough of everything at 50 ppm N (and maybe even lower), meaning that we probably give an excess of everything when we feed most complete fertilizers at 100-150 ppm N.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



There is a handful of leaf litter and throughfall data from rain forests, and typically we feed at orders of magnitude higher than what orchids see in the wild.

The breakdown of your moss over time, trace metals in kelp, and trace minerals in tap water is adequate for supplying the trace goodies without the use of fertilizer input. So shifting everything down proportionately around N calculation should leave you with plenty of trace metals from K lite or MSU.


----------



## Ray (Jan 20, 2013)

terryros said:


> I infer that your best guess is that there is still enough of everything at 50 ppm N (and maybe even lower), meaning that we probably give an excess of everything when we feed most complete fertilizers at 100-150 ppm N.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Yes, and I assure you is is only barely more than a guess. I've done some research, but there is so much conflicting information in general - and so little that pertains to epiphytes - that it's hard to know what is factual and applicable.


----------



## Rick (Jan 20, 2013)

I think Dodiodoki's thread looking for the magic ingredient (from mycorhhizae fungus) for selenpedium is illustrative of how things go in this world.

We find some species that can't take the typical conditions we impose on them from the commercial annual cut flower trade. We assume that we are missing a rare and secret ingredient since the plant we are working with is rare and comes from a secret habitat that we have little access too. 

But instead of looking for something fundamental we turn to commercial cut flower trade data to avoid trying something new and continue on with our quest for micro magic secret ingredients.


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> I think Dodiodoki's thread looking for the magic ingredient (from mycorhhizae fungus) for selenpedium is illustrative of how things go in this world.
> 
> We find some species that can't take the typical conditions we impose on them from the commercial annual cut flower trade. We assume that we are missing a rare and secret ingredient since the plant we are working with is rare and comes from a secret habitat that we have little access too.
> 
> But instead of looking for something fundamental we turn to commercial cut flower trade data to avoid trying something new and continue on with our quest for micro magic secret ingredients.



Reading after bacterial cellular building-up I found some interesting point.
Bacteria ang fungi have very fast metabolism. The main intracellular component is K+ ions. Of course they need others, N, P, etc.
Paphs are slow organism, they have very slow metabolism, so they need only a little, but continous feedeing.
Maybe K lite works because of that but I think that based on this theory very important keeping all nutritients at low concentration ( what is enough for a paph but not enough for pathogenes). As you wrote, max. 150 ppm all in water, measuring outflow TDS to avoid higher cc. in pot.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 4, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> I still think that the klite will need a little more phosphorus, or at least with some species that grow/spike very quickly these plants (not just orchids) usually do better if they have more phosphorus. I know many have been debunking the 'phosphorus is needed for flowering' thing that was promoted for years, but of course klite has a relatively tiny amount of phosphorus compared to the balanced ferts; also there is a minimal amount that is necessary, and as was mentioned earlier in the thread, more (lots more) doesn't mean better



I keep wondering why this formulation is called K-lite when it is as low in phosphorus as it is in potassium. It would be more accurate to call it PK-lite.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 4, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Wonder why recommendations have been to use excessive amounts of nutrients?
> 
> The best way to sell fertilizer is to recommend a application rate double what is needed in reality. the difference between one tsp per gallon and one half tsp per gallon does not seem like much, but to the chemical company it is double sales volume. Most fertility trials have been done or funded by chemical companies so what can we expect? Results are interpreted and skewed towards more profits.
> 
> More is better? :rollhappy:



Yep, those farmers are a bunch of credulous simpletons.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 4, 2013)

Ray said:


> I'm right there with you, Rick.
> 
> I recall hearing of a trial at a large seed producer that showed symptoms of an immense iron deficiency in corn, when in reality, it was an overdose of phosphorus!



Heh, what a bunch of simpletons.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> I keep wondering why this formulation is called K-lite when it is as low in phosphorus as it is in potassium. It would be more accurate to call it PK-lite.



The old MSU fert was already pretty low in P, and the shift away from standard MSU to K lite was to significantly reduce the K while increasing Ca/Mg.

K lite is just a simple shorthand for how the MSU mix is modified.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> The old MSU fert was already pretty low in P, and the shift away from standard MSU to K lite was to significantly reduce the K while increasing Ca/Mg.
> 
> K lite is just a simple shorthand for how the MSU mix is modified.



Yes, but the K-lite is even lower in P than the MSU is.

The MSU-RO formulaton is 13-3-15-8-2 (N-P2O5-K2O-Ca-Mg)
K-Lite is 12-1-1-10-3

So K-lite has reduced phosphorus 3 fold from the MSU-RO formulation, potassium 15 fold, and increased Ca 25% and Mg 50%.

So yes, MSU-RO is unusually high in potassium (though I don't think that it is 15 times too high) but the amount of phosphorus in MSU-RO is already low, what was the motivation for reducing phosphorus another 3 fold?

Also, neither formulation lists sulfur. Is sulfur not considered important!?

https://www.aos.org/Default.aspx?id=417
https://www.firstrays.com/cgi/cart/...product=Chemicals!Nutrition&pid=219&keywords=


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> So K-lite has reduced phosphorus 3 fold from the MSU-RO formulation, potassium 15 fold, and increased Ca 25% and Mg 50%.
> 
> Also, neither formulation lists sulfur. Is sulfur not considered important!?



I would get hand cramps if I had to write low p low K high Ca and high Mg every time I wanted to refer to the basic K-lite product (that you found and examined the NPK Ca Mg label for)

I really don't consider the drop in phosphorus as significant compared to the decrease in K. Looking at the jungle data, the amounts of total fert we apply to orchids is orders of magnitude more than they would see in the wild. The amount of P (1% or 3%) is still more than enough to get the job done.

We ain't growing corn here. 


There are sulfate salts in both MSU and K lite, but I think they will only show up in the raw ingredients list. Some sulfate is important. Most surface waters have tons of it, so if you add a pinch of most household waters to you RO you'll get plenty.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> I really don't consider the drop in phosphorus as significant compared to the decrease in K. Looking at the jungle data, the amounts of total fert we apply to orchids is orders of magnitude more than they would see in the wild. The amount of P (1% or 3%) is still more than enough to get the job done.


But an argument that you make (and to which I somewhat agree) is that it is not so much the amount as the ratio.



> There are sulfate salts in both MSU and K lite, but I think they will only show up in the raw ingredients list. Some sulfate is important. Most surface waters have tons of it, so if you add a pinch of most household waters to you RO you'll get plenty.


Here I disagree, in my opinion sulfur ratios should be much more than for iron and possibly closer to 1:1 with the magnesium. A pinch of tap water isn't nearly sufficient.


----------



## cnycharles (Feb 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> B
> Here I disagree, in my opinion sulfur ratios should be much more than for iron and possibly closer to 1:1 with the magnesium. A pinch of tap water isn't nearly sufficient.



 it depends on where you get your water from; some places the water is pretty stinky, so 'just a little dab 'll doya'

how much sulfur do you think should be available for orchids? just politely curious. but, you also mention that you think the ratio is maybe more important than just a volume; so what ratio of sulfur to magnesium or whichever do you think would be acceptable for orchids?

I had also thought that maybe the klite had gone too far down in the amount of phosphorus, because of pot plant needs when they are quickly flowering/branching (like mums); these need to have more when flower structures will be growing quickly/large.... but some of that concern was just because standard hort/flower fertilizers often had so much phosphorus in them, that that little number 1% (in klite) just seemed too low. but, from the discussion, who really knows how much orchids need, and maybe even the 1% is more than enough if freely available


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 4, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> how much sulfur do you think should be available for orchids? just politely curious. but, you also mention that you think the ratio is maybe more important than just a volume; so what ratio of sulfur to magnesium or whichever do you think would be acceptable for orchids?


15-5-10-10-2.5-2 : N-P-K-Ca-Mg-S I think is a good ratio.

I gave the values for my most recent batch in a thread here yesterday, from memory I think it was:
15-10-10-8-2-0.5

Here it is:
N-P-K-Ca-Mg-S ratio of 14.6-10.4-11.4-9.5-2.4-0.5 with a nitrate/ammonia ratio of 4.3/1.
http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=403192&postcount=16


----------



## cnycharles (Feb 4, 2013)

okay, thank you. I zipped over some of the numbers too quickly before


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> 15-5-10-10-2.5-2 : N-P-K-Ca-Mg-S I think is a good ratio.



Why? It's really no different from what orchid growers have been using the last 100 years, and getting nowhere. What's the advantage of the above over standard MSU?

K lite wasn't put together randomly last year as something we thought would be fun to do. It was a project spurred by obvious shortcomings in long term orchid culture. The basis of it was a comparison between what's being used presently in the agricultural community (including the ornamental flower bussiness), and what the nutrient flux is in the jungle.

Then some of us have been testing this for about 2 years now (with great results). There are over 90 users world wide now (K lite came out last November/December), and most of these users are also seeing improved results over their old balanced versions or MSU knock offs. So no point in changing the formula to something that's readily available from the local garden center. It works as is.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 4, 2013)

Rick said:


> Why? It's really no different from what orchid growers have been using the last 100 years, and getting nowhere. What's the advantage of the above over standard MSU?
> 
> K lite wasn't put together randomly last year as something we thought would be fun to do. It was a project spurred by obvious shortcomings in long term orchid culture. The basis of it was a comparison between what's being used presently in the agricultural community (including the ornamental flower bussiness), and what the nutrient flux is in the jungle.
> 
> Then some of us have been testing this for about 2 years now (with great results). There are over 90 users world wide now (K lite came out last November/December), and most of these users are also seeing improved results over their old balanced versions or MSU knock offs. So no point in changing the formula to something that's readily available from the local garden center. It works as is.



My statement stands. 

"using for the last 100 years and getting no where"
You are talking like its only since klite that people have been able to keep orchids alive. That is not correct. Perhaps cypripediodeae have some special needs but with laeliinae and catasetinae and various other genera that I grow I don't see what the problems are that would be cured by klite. And really, I don't see why potassium should be so toxic to cypripediodea, the half dozen that I have seem not to have been harmed by the more conventional K ratios.


----------



## Ray (Feb 4, 2013)

David, I think the point is that potassium can build up to levels that can be damaging, not that applying it regularly at "traditional" levels will, by itself, be harmful.

There a lot of dynamics in the pot - flushing, drying, different absorption characteristics, repotting, application rates, substrate properties, etc. Some may be less sensitive to the buildup issues than others, and that's ignoring the particular plant.

I cannot tell you how many times I've seen folks grow plants great, and then "poof", out of the blue it just goes downhill. Is that due to K accumulation? I certainly cannot say for sure, but the transference of my knowledge of materials science to this arena makes it appear to be plausible, which is why we're experimenting.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> You are talking like its only since klite that people have been able to keep orchids alive. That is not correct..



Agreed. That is a total over dramatization of what we've been seeing over the years.

However, if you pay attention to the complaints that come up on this site, and at your local orchid society, you hear pretty much the same problems that have plagued the hobby for decades (if not a full century).

We still have debates about "what is the natural life span of orchids" because no one (except the little old German lady in TN who NEVER fertilizes) can get XYZ plant to last more than 5 years. Or seedlings of XYZ are "impossible to raise to blooming size" (subsequently dependent on jungle collected plants (that die in 5 years!) and plants of XYZ stay short and stumpy in the GH, while in the jungle they are bigger than a house, or species XYZ is prone to disease #9 unless you dance naked in your GH during every full moon.

Allot of orchid culture is really dumbed down to a pretty low level of performance expectations. It's actually had very little science applied to it, and mostly hobbiest anecdote. I can say that as a UC Irvine trained reseach scientist.

Now most of my collection is Slippers (Paph, Phrag, and Mexi), Bulbos, and Phalaenopsis species, but I have a handfull of laeliinae (and even a Catesetum species). Universally adult plants are doing better/bigger/healthier since the last 2 years of low K compared to the previous 8 years of MSU. The rate of seedling loss is a fraction of what it was in previous years, and seedlings are growing at an unparalleled rate. Check out Bjorns thread on his seedlings too using K lite.

I've already run the gambit of light/temp/humidity mods, so nutrition is the last frontier and the present direction is really panning out.

So why should I go back to the old ways?


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

Ray said:


> I think the point is that potassium can build up to levels that can be damaging, not that applying it regularly at "traditional" levels will, by itself, be harmful.



????

I think this one is already out of the barn Ray. K lite was developed to address a littany of orchid growing performance complaints. Not just a fun chemistry experiment.


----------



## Rick (Feb 4, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> it depends on where you get your water from; some places the water is pretty stinky, so 'just a little dab 'll doya'



Charles if you can smell it (rotten eggs) that's hydrogen sulfide. But sulfate doesn't smell.

My well water last measured has 270 ppm of sulfate (and smells just fine actually), so I can add 5% (a virtual spit) of my well water to RO and have more than enough sulfate to make any orchid happy.

Our Nashville tap water is pretty average for the US with hardness between 80-100 and has sulfate somewhere around 50 or so ppm.

10-20% (I guess that's up to 4 spits!) in RO would accomplish the same thing. 

Most of us fertilize once a week, but water a few more times in between for flushing. I think its a great idea to understand your local water, and use it in dilute quantities to get things like sulfate, chloride, bicarbonate, calcium , magnesium, maybe even some silicates....... Without a huge pile of N in the deal.


----------



## Stone (Feb 6, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> QUOTE] Perhaps cypripediodeae have some special needs but with laeliinae and catasetinae and various other genera that I grow I don't see what the problems are that would be cured by klite. And really, I don't see why potassium should be so toxic to cypripediodea, the half dozen that I have seem not to have been harmed by the more conventional K ratios


.

This is what I'm talk'n about::clap::rollhappy: BTW David, I also agree that S should be about 10-12% of N. (with pure water)


----------



## Rick (Feb 7, 2013)

Here's a mathematical perspective.

I took and average mature green leaf from my Catt. mossiae and Prosthecia cochleata.

Both leaves were similar in dimension 7"X 1.75" (Cm) and 8" X 1.5" (Pc)

The wet weights of each was 8.11g (Cm) and 2.60g (Pc)
Dry weights came out to 0.968g (Cm) and 0.54g (Pc)

The Zotz leaf tissue concentrion for a mature leaf (average for all orchids tested that are not ant associates) is 9.7 mg/g dry weight.

So that means that if the K for these two species is comparable to a host of jungle Panamanian orchids, they would have a total of 9.4mg and 5.2mg of K per leaf.

So for the plant to create these leaves from Klite (over the coarse of a 6-8 month growing cycle) you would need to appy about one or two liters of K lite at 50ppm N, but only about 175 ml (over 6-8 months) of regular MSU.

With weekly feeding thats 32 feedings over 8 months. So the equivalent amounts of solution per feeding are:
5.4ml/feeding of MSU versus ~50 mL/feeding of Klite. 

For K sensitive species, which is easier to overdose? Since mounted plants don't retain fluid past the feeding, you could see that mounted plants have an advantage over potted for reducing the chance of overfeeding. Once you can picture how much K is need for a full size Catt leaf, how does that compare to an out of flask seedling? 
From a test variability study, with water running out of pots at different times/rates...... how can you know what the real dose is per plant (except in SH or full hydro conditions? Some days you feed superficially some days you pour it on. Some weeks you skip, some weeks you lower the concentration. Some folks do the whole "winter rest" thing and don't even feed for months on end.

Now I will say that the Catt mossia is doing just fine after a couple of years under this regime, its added a few new growths, and its not eating up old back bulbs or leaves. The Prosthecia on the other hand has gone nuts over the last 2 years. Leaves, bulbs, 20-30% bigger than pre low K and blooms for months on end (I have 4 spikes going this year). Before low K I would have been totally satisfied with the way the Prosthecia was growing with MSU. I wouldn't have considered it a "problem plant". This is a commonly grown species so lots of good experienced growers in our society were very impressed with the quality of what this plant is doing compared to their results. So it was a total bonus as far as I'm concerned, and if you are satasfied with your plants then be happy.

There is a range of K that was found in Panamanian orchids. Maybe the Prosthecia is more like Epidendrum nocturnum that only had 2.3 mg/g of K in its leaves? At that rate a couple tablespoons per week of Klite is more than enough.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 8, 2013)

Relative amounts is important. What was the amount of N in the same leaf tissue? If you include that you should find that with Klite you are overfeeding with N to get the required amount of K.



> With weekly feeding thats 32 feedings over 8 months. So the equivalent amounts of solution per feeding are:
> 5.4ml/feeding of MSU versus ~50 mL/feeding of Klite.


If you want someone to actually be able to follow your argument then you should give ppm of each major element in the 2 solutions. I could do it with a bunch of backtrack calculations but it would have been easier for you to have done this as part of your calculations.

To repeat myself, it seems to me that relative amounts are important and in that regard, Klite (actually KPlite) is unbalanced in the amount of K and P (not to mention that sulfate is not even given in the analysis).


----------



## gonewild (Feb 8, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> To repeat myself, it seems to me that relative amounts are important and in that regard, Klite (actually KPlite) is unbalanced in the amount of K and P (not to mention that sulfate is not even given in the analysis).



Actually it is not unbalanced. The point of K-lite is that the "balance" has been redesigned. K-lite assumes a new ratio between the elements. You can believe that the old ratio was correct for all the elements but the new ratio so far is proving to be an improvement. If this improvement holds up then we have a new standard for the correct NPK ratio at least for general orchid species.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 8, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Actually it is not unbalanced. The point of K-lite is that the "balance" has been redesigned. K-lite assumes a new ratio between the elements. You can believe that the old ratio was correct for all the elements but the new ratio so far is proving to be an improvement. If this improvement holds up then we have a new standard for the correct NPK ratio at least for general orchid species.



By tissue analysis, which is what Rick was just doing, it _is_ unbalanced.

Maybe it is superior based on results but by comparing the ratios of elements in plant tissue it is unbalanced.



> The point of K-lite is that the "balance" has been redesigned.


That is a "words mean whatever I say they mean" type of statement - Klite is balanced (a redesigned balance) because you say it is balanced. Sounds like marketing speak, especially the part about "redesigned balance".


----------



## Ray (Feb 8, 2013)

I think that the reality is that:

1) Tissue analysis tells you what is in the tissue, not what the plant needs to operate optimally.

2) Nobody knows what the optimal nutritional levels are.

3) Those "optimal levels" are likely different among species, if not among individuals of the same species.

Therefore, we can experiment, adjusting the relative amounts and dosing levels, and become good observers.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 8, 2013)

> DavidCampen said:
> 
> 
> > By tissue analysis, which is what Rick was just doing, it _is_ unbalanced.
> ...


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2013)

I think this is just semantics.

If you think of "balanced"as being "of equal weight", as in the use of a laboratory balance, then a "balanced fertilizer" would be something like a 20-20-20.

If, on the other hand, you are using the word as an expression of "correct combination of nutrients", as in a "balanced diet", then the term COULD apply to any formula - assuming we know what the correct combination is.


----------



## DavidCampen (Feb 9, 2013)

gonewild said:


> Marketing has nothing to do with the discussion or trials of K-lite here on ST.
> When you make a statement like that you imply that I am exaggerating the values of the K-lite balance to sell it. I have NO connection to chemical sales.



Sorry, it was an attempt at amusing hyperbole but it went beyond that to being incendiary; I apologize.



Ray said:


> I think this is just semantics.
> 
> If you think of "balanced"as being "of equal weight", as in the use of a laboratory balance, then a "balanced fertilizer" would be something like a 20-20-20.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you are using the word as an expression of "correct combination of nutrients", as in a "balanced diet", then the term COULD apply to any formula - assuming we know what the correct combination is.


Yes, that is a precise recapitulation.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 9, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Sorry, it was an attempt at amusing hyperbole but it went beyond that to being incendiary; I apologize.



No problem at all. 
:noangel:
ity:


----------



## Rick (Feb 10, 2013)

Ray said:


> I think that the reality is that:
> 
> 1) Tissue analysis tells you what is in the tissue, not what the plant needs to operate optimally.
> 
> ...



I think this goes back to the definition of what is "optimal". "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" they say.

Optimal for a top fuel dragster is totally different than optimal for a indy race car (even though they are both cars).

COMPARING tissue level concentrations of nutrients in wild vs cultivated plants is a pretty good exercise for defining "optimal". It's obvious when you see the data that there is a difference between wild and cultivated plants (particularly in regard to K,Ca, Mg content and ratio).

It's also apparent that wild plants seem to do better in the wild than in culture. Last longer, bloom great, without all the effort of repotting, pesticide, fungicide......

Now if you couple the above 2 exercises (comparison of tissue sample data, and defining performance objectives by comparing wild orchid performance with cultured orchid performance) with the fragments of actual plant physiology and environmental data that we've pieced together on this project, I think you really can "know" what optimal levels are.

Now "optimal" is going to have a broad range, not a single number, because of all the variables concerned. Like individual species sensitivity, age/size of plant, potting conditions, and everything else that really factor into what toxicologists do to provide a single universal protective value for all species under all conditions.

There is a profound shift in philosophy in this exercise in the basic sense from "what is the least we can get away with to assure optimal performance versus what is the most we can get away with to assure optimal performance".
But I often see we frequently get stuck debating what is optimal for the sake of having something to debate.


----------



## Rick (Feb 10, 2013)

Ray said:


> I think that the reality is that:
> 
> 1) Tissue analysis tells you what is in the tissue, not what the plant needs to operate optimally.
> 
> ...



If we take as an assumption that the growth of jungle plants is "optimum" (probably never ending debate), then we "know" from data.

1) The amount (and ratios) of nutrients in the environment available to orchids IS different from what we typically supply in culture.
2) The amount (and ratios) of nutrients in leaf tissue is different between wild and cultured plants.
3) The uptake of nutrients is not strictly passive, but partially active AND selective, and the reason we see differences between wild and cultured leaf tissue concentrations.

Then I think we can say we are getting close to "knowing" what are optimal levels of nutrients, and move on to the questions of application.

This may completely fall apart for multigenerational man made cultivars with different performance objectives than wild species orchids, but I'm focused on species not hybrids. But at least in my gh with less than 2% of my total collection as complex hybrids I'm seeing good results with low K for them too.

I certainly have not seen "starvation"/ deficiency symptoms of anything.


----------

