# Chc



## Roth (Jun 16, 2006)

I was wondering if cocochips could be toxic to paphs. I had chlorosis when I tried a couple months ago.

AnTec adductum

I can not understand why AnTec is now back to other mixes. Anybody has an idea ? How can I use cocochips for my plants ?


----------



## adiaphane (Jun 16, 2006)

On the AnTec site, there should be a whole thing on how to treat CHC. Some CHC, because they float on salty water on the way to the processing plant, soak up the salt content. I primarily use CHC in my mixes, and I have noticed more vigorous growth and more and stronger roots. I prepare mine according to antec's site.
http://www.ladyslipper.com/cocofaq.htm 

For preparation, go here:
http://www.ladyslipper.com/coco3.htm

Before I use it, I *taste* it to make sure all the salt is gone. Also, I don't use it alone. I mix it with perlite, charcoal and good quality (the lesser quality won't dry out and just cause rot and so I would avoid it) sphagnum.

Oh, and welcome!


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Jun 16, 2006)

Just about every paph or phrag I've lost has been directly or indirectly related to bark or chc. When woody materials stay wet for a couple months, they produce things that orchid roots don't like. Now I've sworn off both.

Jon
________
Ford Expedition


----------



## Marco (Jun 16, 2006)

Jon in SW Ohio said:


> Just about every paph or phrag I've lost has been directly or indirectly related to bark or chc. When woody materials stay wet for a couple months, they produce things that orchid roots don't like. Now I've sworn off both.
> 
> Jon



So what do you use now Jon?


----------



## Paphman910 (Jun 16, 2006)

I treat my coconut husk by soaking them for a long time until they all sink. Reason for this is so the excess salts can be leached out. I treat the coconut husk with calcium nitrate and epson salt. I would soak it for a couple of days and drain the water and fill with clean water. We have tap water with a 29 PPM and Paphs grow really well.

Paphman910


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Jun 16, 2006)

I use semi-hydro medias like prime agra and hydroton, but not doing the semi-hydro setup, just aircone pots watered normally.

I also use my peat based metromix with lots of perlite and charcoal...but most of these will be moved to prime agra at their next repotting.

I still use sphag for my Neos, mostly because I like the look of the traditional method, but I have to repot at least twice if not three times a year.

Jon
________
Ford durango specifications


----------



## Heather (Jun 16, 2006)

I never had trouble with the salts in CHC, though I was always terribly paranoid about the possibility of it becomming a problem. I didn't go to all the trouble Antec suggests either. But I did soak it several times, or leave it out in the rain water (in a colander so it would drain) for a while. I grew in a predominantly CHC/Diatomite mix for a couple years and just recently switched most of my plants out of it, into Prime Agra to ease watering in my new house (I also have a new hour long commute 2x a day). 

I too *taste* my chc for salts! Never tasted any. 
yum yum! 

(How funny, I thought I was the only one who did that, Tien!)

Sanderianum - welcome!!


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jun 16, 2006)

I soak my CHC according the Antec formula, using calcium nitrate and epsom salts for the second soak...I give it a minimum of 3 soakings, usually more. I have never tasted it..but I have tested the soaking water with my refractometer (which I normally use to test salinity in my saltwater tanks), and its always been 0. While epiphytic orchids can go into straight CHC (I use a larger grade for those) paphs MUST be put in a blend of CHC, and some inert particle that can aerate, preferably of the same size as the CHC chips. Spongerock (although it is getting increasingly hard to find real #4 spongerock), Diatomite, lava rock, or any of the LECA types are good...and in large quantities. The yellow leaves could be due to a pH problem..what are you using? I use First Rays version of MSU (other versions seem to have higher phosphorus, which is unnecessary, and lowers the pH too much) to which I add 1/4 tspn Protekt/gallon/200ppm fertilizer (only that strength for the multiflorals...half the strength in all respects for other paphs) to adjust the pH. MSU in this formula is the least acidic fertilizer I have seen...Dynagro required double the ProTekt...and as I said before, the more phosphorus, the more acidic the fertilizer. Most paphs prefer a pH of about 6.8 or so...on the other hand, what is your water like? I would guess that a very basic pH would have similar effects...Take care, Eric


----------



## Heather (Jun 16, 2006)

Hmmm, my fertilizer solution is the same as Eric's, good to know! Just FYI, I'm in Boston. I only grow multifloral Paphs. 

Eric - what do you use on your Phrags please? thanks!


----------



## Ray (Jun 17, 2006)

Just as a quick note, since it came up in the discussion, the so-called "First Rays version of MSU" is the original stuff used in the MSU study. I merely buy it and repackage it.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Jun 17, 2006)

I grow my phrags in bark instead of CHC (which phrags tolerate at best, hate at worst),sponge rock, and with NZ sphagnum added to the mix. I have one in SH as an experiment...if it does well, I'll try others that way. I use straight MSU, no additives, but at half the dose that I use for other high light plants...100ppm/gal. I also fertilize no more than once a week, although they are watered almost every day. Phrags are tough as nails...other than a tendency to brown leaf tips in some clones, and a disgusting yellowish leaf rot in the caudatum types, they are usually nearly impossible to kill (although I have accomplished the impossible....). They even seem to prefer disgustingly rotted mix...unless they grow too big (always a possibility as phrags are speedy growers), I usually leave them in the mix for at least 2 years. As I said in another post, the awful Rexius bark that devastated my paph collection was well loved by my phrags. Take care, Eric


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 17, 2006)

Ray said:


> Just as a quick note, since it came up in the discussion, the so-called "First Rays version of MSU" is the original stuff used in the MSU study. I merely buy it and repackage it.



Which brings up another issue: There are two versions of the MSU Formula: one for rain/RO/distilled water and the other for tap/well water. When you buy it, be sure you get the proper one for your type of water. Some vendors tell you theirs is for everything; but if it is, it's not the real MSU formula, or they are misleading you. Ray is authentic.


----------



## Jim Toomey (Jun 18, 2011)

Hi,
Bill Argo of the Blackmore company said:
"We do have another formulation called the South Florida special (15-4-17) that would also work.  In that formula matches up fine with your alkalinity concentration, and the magnesium level is higher than the calcium level."
He was referring to the results of the water analaysis of my water and which version would match up best.
Bill also mentioned that the Well Water formula would work great as long as I added magnesium sulfate (Epsom salts) due to the low magnesium content of my water. 
I would highly recommend that you get your water tested by a lab at least once. That is a great objective way to see what fertilizer will work best for your water.
JT


----------



## Rick (Jun 18, 2011)

I agree. This is the direction I've been going in with my plants.

I have a "crusty" well water that is very heavy in Ca compared to Mg, and even less K.

MSU fert (for RO) already has more Ca than Mg, so even with thinned down well water, I'm still lopsiding Ca and K with very little Mg.

I'd like to find a fertilizer with less K than MSU.

I think a plain old Blood meal /bone meal combo would do that.

I looked up the mineral content of sphagnum moss, and it has the potential on breakdown to supply everything in the right proportions. Just not in large quantities.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 20, 2011)

In New Zealand I grew everything in CHC, all my Paphs, Masd, Draculas, Cymbidiums, the works. I didn't lose anything due to the CHC, but lost a few things due to bark decomposing and losing its air to water ratio.

The trick I found with the CHC was to only add fertiliser every 3-4 waterings. If you feed every time you will get a build-up of fert ions in the chunks that make the medium too strong. Be generous with the water, as well, it will flush out any excess. Also when potting don't pack the chunks in too much, you can have plenty of air spaces, as well as lots of water in the mix. 

I am using Hydroton, now, but have a block of CHC handy if I ever want to swap some things over. Anything is better than bark, IMO.


----------



## NYEric (Jun 20, 2011)

I am starting to add a little fine CHC back into my mixes because the shape has angular edges which make air spaces and because some roots seem to like it. I soak it in R.O. water a couple of times (only for a few minutes) in a vain effort to remove salts.


----------



## Bolero (Jun 21, 2011)

I know some people have success but I think also that not all paphs like it.

I stopped using it and reverted to small pine bark for my paphs and I won't be going back to chc. Having said that.......I do know people have had some success with it.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 21, 2011)

NYEric said:


> I am starting to add a little fine CHC back into my mixes because the shape has angular edges which make air spaces and because some roots seem to like it. I soak it in R.O. water a couple of times (only for a few minutes) in a vain effort to remove salts.



Adding magnesium sulphate or calcium nitrate to the soaking water makes all the difference. It replaces the sodium and potassium on the fibres. It's all to do with the high cation exchange capacity of CHC. The sites on the CHC fibres are very unlikely to be left empty by soaking, they need to have an ion attached, so replacing with one that you want is the best method. Eventually drenching with fertiliser solutions when watering will do it, but the roots may sulk a bit until the levels come down.


----------



## Ray (Jun 21, 2011)

Jim Toomey said:


> Hi,
> Bill Argo of the Blackmore company said:
> "We do have another formulation called the South Florida special (15-4-17) that would also work.* In that formula matches up fine with your alkalinity concentration, and the magnesium level is higher than the calcium level."
> He was referring to the results of the water analaysis of my water and which version would match up best.
> ...



A very good point, Jim.

Ground water chemistry does vary, though, so if you're looking for chemical perfection in your plants' diet, you're going to have to do a lot of testing and adjusting.

The original "Well Water" formula is simply the RO formula adjusted for what's already in the Michigan State well water. That's why I prefer to use RO and the appropriate formula, as I "know" what I'm giving my plants. However, considering the success folks have in growing plants using every formula under the sun, it reinforces the thought that nutrition is way down the priority list of cultural parameters.


----------



## Jim Toomey (Jun 21, 2011)

Hi Ray,
Thank you Ray!
I'm not looking for perfection...
For me it is/was an objective starting point. 
The ground water chemistry does vary with the seasons/rainfall for example. But it generally varies within a range of parameters, and as long as the fertilizer matches up with most of the needs I'm fine.

Though there are other cultural parameters more important than fertilizer I felt since the fertilizer is relatively cheap ($45 or so a bag) compared to what we have spent for our plants, it is very much worth the time and effort to get the values in the right ballpark.

RO would be the very best since everyone would be starting with a blank slate.


----------



## NYEric (Jun 21, 2011)

PaulS said:


> Adding magnesium sulphate or calcium nitrate to the soaking water makes all the difference. It replaces the sodium and potassium on the fibres. It's all to do with the high cation exchange capacity of CHC. The sites on the CHC fibres are very unlikely to be left empty by soaking, they need to have an ion attached, so replacing with one that you want is the best method. Eventually drenching with fertiliser solutions when watering will do it, but the roots may sulk a bit until the levels come down.



I use epsom salts in my fertilizer. Thanks.


----------



## Rick (Jun 24, 2011)

NYEric said:


> I use epsom salts in my fertilizer. Thanks.



But do you add enough epsom salts to conteract the potassium in your fertilizer?

Chances are the CHC is sucking up the bulk of K from your fertilizer rather than the orchid. (Unless its a big plant in a small pot on a warm sunny day).

For instance MSU for RO water has 3-4 times the amount of K than Mg. If you don't have enough Mg (or Ca) to conteract the K then the K will end up replacing all the Mg you origionally used to get the K out of the CHC in the first place.

This is the reason why I'm looking at going to a low potassium fertilizer (like blood meal).


----------



## Justin (Jun 24, 2011)

Rick, are there any low-potassium commercial formulations or brands you've identified in your research so far?


----------



## likespaphs (Jun 24, 2011)

Rick said:


> ...If you don't have enough Mg (or Ca) to conteract the K then the K will end up replacing all the Mg you origionally used to get the K out of the CHC in the first place....



i don't understand much of the chemistry involved but i thought that if Ca and Mg (and possibly K) didn't appear at a certain ratio, they would be antagonistic and unavailable.


----------



## Rick (Jun 24, 2011)

Justin said:


> Rick, are there any low-potassium commercial formulations or brands you've identified in your research so far?




I just found out that plain old Miracle Grow is 30 10 10. So 1/2 strength would be 15 5 5

Blood meal (according to Wikipedia) is something like 15 <1 <1


----------



## Rick (Jun 24, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> i don't understand much of the chemistry involved but i thought that if Ca and Mg (and possibly K) didn't appear at a certain ratio, they would be antagonistic and unavailable.



Can't just say "yes". There are bio factors and chemical / ion exchange factors.

From the standpoint of ion exchange factors in potting mixes, there is a priority of selectivity. Generally the potting mixes want to take in the monovalents and give up the divalents. In order to drive it the other way you need to have more divalents available. If you present a 50/50 mix of divalents and monovalents, there will be a selection to take up the monovalents until the concentration of divalents is high enough to produce enough ionic or charge "pull" on the media to balance or reverse the selection process.

From the plant bio process there are two (at least two) basic systems, which are not mutually exclusive. One is ion uptake and the other is various metabolic processes. The requirements for correct ion ratios to avoid antagonism is probably more important from the standpoint of intracellular metabolic requirements. Ion uptake can be both passive and active, which means that environmental ratios of ions can be overcome for specific metabolic needs.

In the environment available K is relatively rare, especially for orchids living on limestone cliffs and up in trees. But if you analyze leaf content for minerals, there is more K than either Ca or Mg. If you look at marine kelp, it has more tissue K than Ca and Mg, but sea water has more Mg than Ca and K. K is actively selected and pumped into plant cells from inherently low concentrations (especially compared to the normal environmental amounts of Ca and Mg). My present hypothesis is that orchids, coming from nutrient impoverished environments, are very efficient at K uptake, but do not have the metabolic hardware to deal with excesses (i.e they can't turn off the pumps easily). And over the course of a year using balanced fertilizer mixes in bark or CHC substrates, you can quickly end up providing an environment with an excess of available K.

Most fertilizers were developed based on testing of common agriculture plants (which are very fast growing compared to orchids) and are harvested to varying extents. Looking at the agriculture litterature its interesting to note that the K consumption (not leaf concentration) of corn (temperate plant completely harvested to the ground every year) is many times greater than for coffee (a tropical plant with only the fruit harvested regularly), but if you analyze tissue, the concentration of K is about the same for the 2 plants.

Corn and wheat will reduce soil K to extremely low levels so during the growth season you need to add a ton of K, but coffee growers don't throw nearly as much K to their plants as corn growers do. And I think orchid growers should use even less.

Orchids in generally grow even slower than coffee and generally don't have a harvestable commodity (except for periodic big floral spikes). The big multis can put a lot of K into new tissue growth during the growing season, but smaller compact species probably can't handle nearly as much. There's not much growth in the winter, but how much do you cut back fertilizer in the winter, building up K in your potting mix?

This post is really starting to ramble, but my short answer is that no, the uptake of nutrients is not passive and even from a solution of ions at set ratios.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 25, 2011)

Rick said:


> I just found out that plain old Miracle Grow is 30 10 10. So 1/2 strength would be 15 5 5
> 
> Blood meal (according to Wikipedia) is something like 15 <1 <1



Correct me if I'm wrong but the numbers are just ratios eg one third = 2 sixths. Dilution changes the concentration but the ratio is the same. In the numbers above it could be written 3.1.1 but that wouldn't look good from the advertising perspective even though its the same.


----------



## Rick (Jun 25, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but the numbers are just ratios eg one third = 2 sixths. Dilution changes the concentration but the ratio is the same. In the numbers above it could be written 3.1.1 but that wouldn't look good from the advertising perspective even though its the same.



I may need correction, but I thought that those numbers represent formula % by weight.

Yes those ratios would reduce down as you point out but I don't think the fert manufacturers scale up with the values just for marketing reasons. The vast bulk of fertilizer is designed and sold to agribusiness that purchases (without much emotion), and the concentration numbers are critical for calculating application rates to large areas.


----------



## likespaphs (Jun 25, 2011)

Rick said:


> I may need correction, but I thought that those numbers represent formula % by weight.
> 
> Yes those ratios would reduce down....




i think the ratios stay constant
a 100 ppm N solution of 20-10-20 is only different than a 200 ppm N of 20-10-20 solution in that it is half as strong, right?


----------



## Rick (Jun 25, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> i think the ratios stay constant
> a 100 ppm N solution of 20-10-20 is only different than a 200 ppm N of 20-10-20 solution in that it is half as strong, right?



That is true but to come up with 100 ppm or 200 ppm you are calculating your dose (i.e tsp/gal) based on a dry formula that contains 20% by weight nitrogen.

So in the case of Miracle Grow 30 10 10 if recommended dose is 1tsp per gal to get 100 ppm of nitrogen, I was backhandedly indicating that if you use it at 1/2 rate of recommended dose you would be using it as if it was 15 5 5 . This was to compare to the MSU I use which is 12 6 13 with a suggested use rate of 1/2 tsp per gal (which I think targets around 200 ppm N).

The NPK fertilizer values should be usable to calculate the dose required to achieve final application target concentrations of NPK.

We've ran these calculations on other threads in the past, so may need to look up some of these for checking.


----------



## Rick (Jun 25, 2011)

looking up the label on the Robert's pure water MSU fert (12 6 13), it is 12% by weight N, 6% by weight phosphate (not elemental P) 13% potash (not elemental K)

The NPK values are actual product concentrations and not simple ratios.

Recommended dose is 1/2 teaspon, which I'm pretty sure is shooting for about 200 mg/L nitrogen.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 26, 2011)

Rick said:


> looking up the label on the Robert's pure water MSU fert (12 6 13), it is 12% by weight N, 6% by weight phosphate (not elemental P) 13% potash (not elemental K)
> 
> The NPK values are actual product concentrations and not simple ratios.
> 
> Recommended dose is 1/2 teaspon, which I'm pretty sure is shooting for about 200 mg/L nitrogen.



I think we are both right. They are both a ratio and by standardisation, become a concentration. See if this makes sense - 
The addition of the percentage sign means its a ratio (percent = 'out of 100')- by weight in this case. It becomes a concentration when a specified amount of ingredient is included in a specific amount/volume/weight of product or when specified amount of product is added to a specified amount of water.(I assume there is a standardised weight for fertilizer quoted ratios (which means I can't divide down the ratio)).ie N = 12gram% or 12 grams per 100 grams of total product. In the Roberts the 12+6+13 = 31g of active ingredient in 100g product (if grams% is the standard)
So, in this example, if you add 1/2 teaspoon or 20 teaspoons to a gallon/litre the ratio of the elements is the same - 12 6 13, but the concentrations are different. By specifying the amount to use a concentration can be determined.
A bit like adding cordial to water. It depends on how concentrated the cordial is to determine the amount of water you need to add to taste. But an assumed standard (??? grams% weight) gives the ratio a concentration.

This link is interesting - www.kr5e.com/fertilizer.doc


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 26, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> i think the ratios stay constant
> a 100 ppm N solution of 20-10-20 is only different than a 200 ppm N of 20-10-20 solution in that it is half as strong, right?



Yes.
The ratio of the elements is the same but the concentration varies.


----------



## Rick (Jun 26, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> I think we are both right. They are both a ratio and by standardisation, become a concentration. See if this makes sense -
> The addition of the percentage sign means its a ratio (percent = 'out of 100')- by weight in this case. It becomes a concentration when a specified amount of ingredient is included in a specific amount/volume/weight of product or when specified amount of product is added to a specified amount of water.(I assume there is a standardised weight for fertilizer quoted ratios (which means I can't divide down the ratio)).ie N = 12gram% or 12 grams per 100 grams of total product. In the Roberts the 12+6+13 = 31g of active ingredient in 100g product (if grams% is the standard)
> So, in this example, if you add 1/2 teaspoon or 20 teaspoons to a gallon/litre the ratio of the elements is the same - 12 6 13, but the concentrations are different. By specifying the amount to use a concentration can be determined.
> A bit like adding cordial to water. It depends on how concentrated the cordial is to determine the amount of water you need to add to taste. But an assumed standard (??? grams% weight) gives the ratio a concentration.
> ...



Getting closer. % is a unit-less ratio until you specify (in this case % product by weight). So 1% is 1 gram for every 100 grams or 10 grams per Kilogram. You could switch to oz and pounds if you like, and ultimately we convert to english volume measures (tsp/gal) since most of us don't keep a balance in our kitchen.

And yes you need a final concentration target (usually 200 mg/L or ppm N).

Typically all the conversions are done for us and end up on the bag at the prescribed usage rate (anything from 1/2 to 1 tsp/gal is common). Which is the general basis most orchid growers end up communicating to each other by.

So if most of us hobbyists are using a 200mg/L N target and using fertilizers at the recommended dose rate of 1/2 tsp per gallon, then the NPK ratios are meaningful to compare both ratio and total dose of those constituents.

Also the portion after the cumulative %NPK is not inert as you implied above.

The rest of the material (after NPK) will contain all the other ions (like the sodium, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, chloride...., and trace materials.


----------



## Rick (Jun 26, 2011)

Rick said:


> Also the portion after the cumulative %NPK is not inert as you implied above.
> 
> The rest of the material (after NPK) will contain all the other ions (like the sodium, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, chloride...., and trace materials.




This point is the crux of this thread.

Trying to get the right balance of K, Ca, and Mg with your irrigation water, and the ion exchange/adsorption characteristics of your potting mix (in this case CHC)


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 26, 2011)

Rick said:


> Getting closer. % is a unit-less ratio until you specify (in this case % product by weight). So 1% is 1 gram for every 100 grams or 10 grams per Kilogram. You could switch to oz and pounds if you like, and ultimately we convert to english volume measures (tsp/gal) since most of us don't keep a balance in our kitchen.
> 
> And yes you need a final concentration target (usually 200 mg/L or ppm N).
> 
> ...



Yes, agree.
Inert's probably not what I meant. ?? not the active constituent?? not what we're paying for??not biologically relevant.....or my favourite "other stuff"!
The trace elements are important. Do you know if they are actively added (aside from Mg/Ca etc. Like Br, Cu etc) or 'contaminants'/by products of impure raw ingredients??

What did you think of that link suggesting 125ppm for N?


----------



## Rick (Jun 26, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Yes, agree.
> Inert's probably not what I meant. ?? not the active constituent?? not what we're paying for??not biologically relevant.....or my favourite "other stuff"!
> The trace elements are important. Do you know if they are actively added (aside from Mg/Ca etc. Like Br, Cu etc) or 'contaminants'/by products of impure raw ingredients??
> 
> What did you think of that link suggesting 125ppm for N?



Several fertilizer brands do purposely add trace elements. The link you posted specifically mentions the MSU fertilizer formula that does include trace elements (on purpose). I know David Mellard. He's kind of in the same line of business as I'm in, and knows his orchids, water, and chemistry. I think 125 mg/L is just fine. I think the semi hydro system uses chronic low doses less than half of that. I also know a few growers that never use fertilizer at all, and grow great stuff just using their local drinking water.

I also think its dangerous for our orchids to focus on a single parameter (like nitrogen) without considering the interactions of light, temp, humidity, potting mix chemistry, and the rest of the nutritional factors.

Your best bet for good results is to find somebody that is getting the results you want with the plants that you like, and then replicate what they are doing for all the above parameters. With more experience, you can start to dissect your program and see what parts could stand improvement, and gather information to custom tailor your own program for optimization.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 27, 2011)

Rick said:


> Your best bet for good results is to find somebody that is getting the results you want with the plants that you like, and then replicate what they are doing for all the above parameters. With more experience, you can start to dissect your program and see what parts could stand improvement, and gather information to custom tailor your own program for optimization.



Absolutely!
I've learnt more by visiting other growers orchid houses and taking in the 'environment' and asking questions, than from most books. Hands on learning is so helpful. The trick is tweaking things to suit your own conditions. Its so much harder than it looks.


----------



## Rick (Jun 27, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> Absolutely!
> I've learnt more by visiting other growers orchid houses and taking in the 'environment' and asking questions, than from most books. Hands on learning is so helpful. The trick is tweaking things to suit your own conditions. Its so much harder than it looks.



Yup

That's why these threads get so long, convoluted, and contentious.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 27, 2011)

It seems everyone is wondering about MSU's orchid fertilizer, and discussing such things as why 125 ppm, and what about the micronutrients, etc., etc. 

Why not go to the source?
https://www.msu.edu/~goddengr/publications/publications.htm


----------



## Rick (Jun 27, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> It seems everyone is wondering about MSU's orchid fertilizer, and discussing such things as why 125 ppm, and what about the micronutrients, etc., etc.
> 
> Why not go to the source?
> https://www.msu.edu/~goddengr/publications/publications.htm



Note "likes clay pots and BASKETS" , Application for non paphs at 125 mg/L N "less for paphs". 

I didn't see what the substrate of potting mix is.


----------

