# Akerne rain mix + CaNO3 to get low K result?



## eds (Mar 6, 2019)

I'm getting back into slippers and orchids again and bought a load of rain mix thinking it would be a better fertiliser than the standard fare. After reading on here I can see the logic in the low K approach for these plants but obviously would rather not just chuck the kilo of ferts I've just bought. 

Can I mix it 50:50 with Calcium Nitrate to give a similar result?

Should I also add some more micro fertilisers as well? (I have various ferts from my planted aquatics days.)


----------



## Ray (Mar 7, 2019)

Rain Mix is a 11-2-13-8Ca-5Mg formula, if I recall correctly. CaNO3 is 15-0-0-19Ca

Mix them 50/50 and you get a 13-1-6-13Ca-2Mg, still high in K compared to K-Lite, but better.


----------



## eds (Mar 7, 2019)

Ray said:


> Rain Mix is a 11-2-13-8Ca-5Mg formula, if I recall correctly. CaNO3 is 15-0-0-19Ca
> 
> Mix them 50/50 and you get a 13-1-6-13Ca-2Mg, still high in K compared to K-Lite, but better.



Thanks Ray. Pretty near spot on! I should have put the quoted levels in my initial post sorry. 

My tub says Akerne mix is:
11.7% N, 2.7% P2O5, 13.7% K2O, 11.8% CaO, 3.5% MgO and 4.8% SO3

The CaNO3 just says 15.5% N and 26.3% CaO (so 19% Ca would be about right).

So I reckon a 50/50 mix is 13.6%N, 1.35%P2O5, 6.85%K2O, 19.05%CaO, 1.75%MgO and 2.4%SO3.

Do you think there are any benefits to going more dilute with the rain mix? I reckon at 25/75 mix would be 14.55%N, 0.68%P2O5, 3.43%K2O, 22.68%CaO, 0.88%MgO and 1.2%SO3.

Or will it probably be just as good to feed the 50/50 mix at half strength?


----------



## Ray (Mar 8, 2019)

I'd just use the 50/50 blend, but I don't know what you mean by using it at half strength. 

I prefer to follow the lead of commercial growers and manage the fertilizer application by ppm N. How much you feed should be determined by how often you feed, and I have found that 50-75 ppm applied weekly is very good. I also prefer to feed at every watering, so this time of year, with one watering per week, I do 75 ppm N. In the summer, when the plants are outside on the deck and I water 2-3x a week, I use 25 ppm N each time.

Using the 25 ppm level, a reasonable estimate is to divide 2.3 by the %N of the fertilizer to get the ml to add to a liter for 25 ppm N for any formula fertilizer. 

Rain Mix: 2.3/11.7=0.2 ml/L
CaNO3: 2.3/15.5=0.15 ml/L
Blend: 2.3/13.6=0.17 ml/L

Or if you want to be more precise and weigh the powder for mixing, just calculate it: if your blend is 13.6%N, and you want 25 ppm N (25mg/kg), then .025g/0.136=0.184g of powder per liter.

For we less-civilized folks who are stuck with teaspoons per gallon, the volume estimate is simply 2/%N for teaspoons/gal to yield 25 ppm N.


----------



## troy (Mar 8, 2019)

I know there is optimum calcium absorption by plant roots at 70° f is there an optimum nitrogen absorption?


----------



## Ray (Mar 8, 2019)

troy said:


> I know there is optimum calcium absorption by plant roots at 70° f is there an optimum nitrogen absorption?


Where did you learn that?


----------



## eds (Mar 8, 2019)

That's an amazing reply, thanks Ray. Thank you so much for taking the time to work out and relay that information. When I use this up I will definitely be buying some K Life from yourself, assuming you'll ship to the UK.


----------



## troy (Mar 8, 2019)

A biology major person told me that, is that info incorrect?


----------



## Ray (Mar 9, 2019)

After I posted that, I dug out my copy of Marchner's book on mineral nutrition and learned the uptake dynamics is a whole lot more complex than just temperature, as well as the fact that it varies from plant to plant.

The most significant factor isn't temperature, but the rate at which compensating protons are exuded, and that is a day/night thing.

While I found nothing about calcium, there was a mention that nighttime nitrate uptake in soybeans was double that of daytime. Interestingly, when 3 hours of extra light was added, simulating long days, the nighttime uptake rate increase was prevented. That makes me wonder about what folks who grow under lights do when they extend the "on" time...

Generally speaking, a 10C increase in temp only increases the mineral uptake by 10-20%. 

K seems to have a peak uptake rate in maize at 25C, while P maxes out around 40C. Interesting thing about the temp is that where the temperature is applied also has a significant impact:

Maize was tested with roots and shoots at (A) 12C/12C, another set (B) at 24/24, and a third (C) where the root were 12C and the shoots 24C.

The nitrate uptake of B was about 50% greater than A, but that of C was about 80% more than A. With potassium, the B plants took up about 110% more than the A plants, but the C plants took up almost 200% more.


----------



## Stone (Mar 26, 2019)

Edward Seeley said:


> I'm getting back into slippers and orchids again and bought a load of rain mix thinking it would be a better fertiliser than the standard fare. After reading on here I can see the logic in the low K approach for these plants but obviously would rather not just chuck the kilo of ferts I've just bought.
> 
> Can I mix it 50:50 with Calcium Nitrate to give a similar result?
> 
> Should I also add some more micro fertilisers as well? (I have various ferts from my planted aquatics days.)


A waste of time. Give normal K. As much as or a bit less than N. As the season ends, reduce N or give KSo4 a few times to help harden the plant. The whole low K thing should be seen for what it is. A failed hypothesis from the distant past. It's complete nonsense in every way. The most important thing is to water according to your mix. I like to use a quick drying mix and water a lot. With this, you also need to feed a lot but in low concentration. That is low NPK not low K. Paphs find this practice natural to them. Most of the K is absorbed during the rainy season and stored for later use. There is no logic in the ''low K approach''. None whatsoever. This has been proved through practice a million times. The fact that plants can get by on low K shows that they are very efficient at taking it up and storing it. It does not mean they should be treated that way.


----------



## Ray (Mar 27, 2019)

"Welcome back", Stone.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but my plants - now in their 9th year of this "failed hypothesis" - seem to be loving it.

While there was a great deal of speculation in its conceptualization, there is actually a great deal of logic in the approach, which I am not going to rehash, but let me just say that if "they are very efficient at taking it up and storing it", why cannot that suggest that their demand does not required doses nearly as large as we have historically applied, and why should history dictate that "they should be treated that way" ? (Both rhetorical questions.)


----------



## eds (Mar 27, 2019)

Stone said:


> A waste of time. Give normal K. As much as or a bit less than N. As the season ends, reduce N or give KSo4 a few times to help harden the plant. The whole low K thing should be seen for what it is. A failed hypothesis from the distant past. It's complete nonsense in every way. The most important thing is to water according to your mix. I like to use a quick drying mix and water a lot. With this, you also need to feed a lot but in low concentration. That is low NPK not low K. Paphs find this practice natural to them. Most of the K is absorbed during the rainy season and stored for later use. There is no logic in the ''low K approach''. None whatsoever. This has been proved through practice a million times. The fact that plants can get by on low K shows that they are very efficient at taking it up and storing it. It does not mean they should be treated that way.



That's an awfully definitive response! I don't think anything in hobbyist-level horticulture can be that cut and dried. I've not read anyone saying other fert mixes don't work, just that this might be better in reducing the build up of salts, especially K, in the media orchids are grown in long term.

Personally I'm trying alternating different mixtures and I don't think the approach you outline above is really that different. In fact it seems to me that the biggest difference could be that 'Low K' is really more like high N when compared to your dosing rates.


----------



## troy (Mar 27, 2019)

Plants need phospourus for root production and metabolizing other minerals and potassium for transpiration for absorption of co2, a well balanced fertilizer at 1/4 strength with ro water will have best results alternated with a cal mag


----------



## troy (Mar 27, 2019)

Uh oh, now I'm going to get banned from this website for posting the statement above this one lol..


----------



## Ray (Mar 27, 2019)

OK folks. Feel free to use the search function for old threads. They were extensive. No need to rehash this all over again.


----------



## richgarrison (Mar 27, 2019)

I'll throw in a practice i made up on my own maybe someone will provide some valid criticism that will help me improve my practice 

Since i have a reasonably large hobby collection (1200ish plants) and i water/feed daily with tank mixed RO/fert solution, i needed a cost effective way to accomplish what i wanted to do which was work in the direction of the k-lite formula.... yes i was sold on the counter productive effects of potassium blocking nitrogen uptake... (your mileage may vary but that's where i started)...

so turns out that peters makes 2 products that appeared foundational for the formula cal-trate, and mag-trate. both have micronutrients added in what appear to be good proportions but are x-0-0 + Mg or Ca + micros...

and the Cal trate really doesn't like being introduced to higher concentrations of the Mag trate or you get that nice gummy precipitate... so....

after some math, and discussion with Peters folks... i have a ratio of Magtrate : Caltrate : Peat lite where i use the Peat lite to give me phosphorus and potassium... cloudy days in the winter get about 130-150 microsiemens sunny days get more like 250 microsiemens... i mix up gallons of 'concentrate' that i tank mix into my 30 gal fert tank.. (gal of Mg sol first then a gal of Ca sol)... 

Plants appear to love it... (after 6 months...) obviously more testing to come... 

So let the entertaining criticism follow!


----------



## Stone (Mar 27, 2019)

Edward Seeley said:


> That's an awfully definitive response! I don't think anything in hobbyist-level horticulture can be that cut and dried. I've not read anyone saying other fert mixes don't work, just that this might be better in reducing the build up of salts, especially K, in the media orchids are grown in long term.
> 
> Personally I'm trying alternating different mixtures and I don't think the approach you outline above is really that different. In fact it seems to me that the biggest difference could be that 'Low K' is really more like high N when compared to your dosing rates.


I grow many many different species of orchids - not just Paphs, but I also grow cacti both terrestrial and epiphytic (some of which grow on pure limestone or pure gypsum and some of which grow in humus on trees. The recommendation by the experts for these BTW is high K fertilizer). I also grow 90 species of Tillandsia which rely on air borne and rain born nutrients (very low concentrations obviously. The recommendations by the bromeliad experts for these BTW is high K fertilizer) I also grow a large selection of trees and shrubs from extremely varied habitats. The Paphs come from both limestone and acidic habitats.
That's all I do all day, every day, It's my job as well as my hobby. Why do I mention it? Because all these plants receive a K to N ration of approximately 1. All do very well on this. If a plant does not exhibit it's full potential, It's always always because I have not been able to or to cared to supply it with the correct conditions. Not the make up of the fertilizer. (fertilizer will NOT make up for 5 degrees lower than is optimal) All the best growers in the various societies I belong to use a K to N ratio of about 1. Generally, I do not lose old leaves prematurely. If I get brown leaf tips it's because of too high a concentration of TOTAL dissolved (or undissolved) salts not too much K. I do not have deficiencies showing up on plants with good roots. Deficiencies only ever manifest on plants that have been mistreated. Either temperature, root loss or lack of fertilizer or lack of a specific nutrient. Never ever because of too much K. If it ever is too much K it is because it's too much NPK. In short, it is the correct ratio of essential nutrients and it's concentration which makes the difference. Time and time again, the correct ratio giving the best results for N to K is about 1. (1N to 1K) All you need to do when fertilizing plants well is to settle on a good fertilizer (I use 1/2 organic and half manufactured) and then add some form of calcium carbonate for limestone plants or omit it for non limestone plants. This addition or omission will allow for the correct chemical reactions to suit the particular plant. Also vitally important is to get a feel for what is going on in the pot. Nutrients usually build up over time regardless of how low the concentration but not just that, certain fungi build up as well if the pot is not full of roots, these fungi kill roots. Not directly but probably some exudation from them. It's what is normally referred to as stale mix. To prevent this you need to leach by flushing out with a strong and sustained stream of water 2 or 3 times in one day one hour apart. (if you're not sure that the pot has been flushed well it probably hasn't) This seems to wash out all the crap including salt build up which inhibits healthy roots. After that let the plant dry out and start again. This has been the most important point for me as far as good growth.


----------



## Stone (Mar 27, 2019)

Ray said:


> "Welcome back", Stone.
> 
> You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but my plants - now in their 9th year of this "failed hypothesis" - seem to be loving it.
> 
> While there was a great deal of speculation in its conceptualization, there is actually a great deal of logic in the approach, which I am not going to rehash, but let me just say that if "they are very efficient at taking it up and storing it", why cannot that suggest that their demand does not required doses nearly as large as we have historically applied, and why should history dictate that "they should be treated that way" ? (Both rhetorical questions.)



Hi Ray and thanks for the ''welcome''
There most certainly is NOT a great deal of logic in the approach for the very simple reason that the best growers with the best results and all the awards don't do it. Therefore, the only logic remains in the minds of those who do it and not in reality.


----------



## Stone (Mar 27, 2019)

troy said:


> Plants need phospourus for root production and metabolizing other minerals and potassium for transpiration for absorption of co2, a well balanced fertilizer at 1/4 strength with ro water will have best results alternated with a cal mag


Yes plants need P for root production but they need it just as much for the whole plant. The old claims that P is for root growth is not true. In other words, giving more P than is necessary for the normal growth of a plant will NOT increase root growth. It has been tested in trials a number of times. But yes I agree that any standard fertilizer off the shelf of your favourite hardware store will give you the basic NPK that you need. 1-0.3-1 or 10-3-10 is about right..Yes plants need P for root production but they need it just as much for the whole plant. The old claims that P is for root growth is not true. In other words, giving more P than is necessary for the normal growth of a plant will NOT increase root growth. It has been tested in trials a number of times. But yes I agree that any standard fertilizer off the shelf of your favourite hardware store will give you the basic NPK that you need. 1-0.3-1 or 10-3-10 is about right. I use these types and add my own mix of trace elements which includes Ni which is vital if you use Urea.


----------



## Stone (Mar 27, 2019)

repeated


----------



## troy (Mar 27, 2019)

A balanced 16-16-16 fertilizer at 1/4 strength alternated with a cal mag 15 - 5 - 15 jacks brand at 1/4 strength works for me, I'm not saying that to argue, just saying thats what works for me


----------



## Ray (Mar 28, 2019)

I guess this discussion shows different philosophies in thought processes, more than anything else. Personally, just because "others have done so" doesn't bestow a huge amount of credibility to a practice, and usually guides me to look into it as a challenge. "It's always been done that way", by itself, does not mean it's right.

Also, we cannot forget that correlation does not necessarily mean causality. I find the statement "the best growers with the best results and all the awards don't do it" - an implication that it's the use of higher potassium level that leads to awards - to be absurd. It's just as likely that those growers - large-scale, commercial growers, for the most part - get more awards because they have much larger populations to select from, tend to show their plants more in order to enhance their commercial value, and use a "historical" fertilizer because they're readily available and "they work", taking a variable out of their cultural concerns. "What the plants get" does not mean it's "what the plants require".

If you search back a few years, the orchid grower at the Huntington Botanical Gardens showed off several of their FCC's, stating they were fed only calcium nitrate.

I think that there simply hasn't been enough research into the nutritional demands of individual orchids for anyone - including you and me - to say for certain what formula is "perfect" for what plants, and it can vary all over the map. There is some data in Marschner showing uptake of K by maize to be nearly 10x that of onions, and that by tomatoes is 350% of maize. Orchids? Unknown.

I think there is another thought process being demonstrated here: I will not state that the use of a low-K fertilizer is "the best" or even better than the use of a high-K formula. Mimicking Troy's comment, it seems to work fine for me. Others, on the other hand, seem to be adamant that it's a terrible idea - with no experiential basis.


----------



## monocotman (Mar 28, 2019)

I agree with you Ray. I use rain mix at half rate and get great results. Could I do better? Maybe but I'm happy where I am.
If you talk to the Fischers at OL you'll realise that the pro's take this research and understanding to a whole other level but as they've spent time and money on this and it is their profession it is proprietary and mainly confidential information.
They may present information in their talks but you don't tend to see it written down.
I am sure it is the same for other orchid pro's.
David


----------



## Tony (Mar 28, 2019)

I'm using Ray's protocol of K-Lite, Kelp Max and Inocucor and the growth I have seen in just the past few months has been nothing short of incredible. That being said I have made several other changes in my culture including a switch from organic media to inorganic and the use of RO water instead of tap. Maybe the bug juice is magic, maybe my plants are doing better because I'm not afraid to water several times weekly now in the new mix, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. All I can say for sure is that I am very happy with what I am seeing.


----------



## Ray (Mar 29, 2019)

I agree whole-heartedly with Stone's assessment that frequent flushing is critical:


Stone said:


> Also vitally important is to get a feel for what is going on in the pot. Nutrients usually build up over time regardless of how low the concentration but not just that, certain fungi build up as well if the pot is not full of roots, these fungi kill roots. Not directly but probably some exudation from them. It's what is normally referred to as stale mix. To prevent this you need to leach by flushing out with a strong and sustained stream of water 2 or 3 times in one day one hour apart. (if you're not sure that the pot has been flushed well it probably hasn't) This seems to wash out all the crap including salt build up which inhibits healthy roots.


Water is truly the driving force for plant growth; fertilizer is far less important, but residues in the pot can inhibit plant growth. And while I agree there will always be buildup in all media, the use of very low fertilizer concentrations, while not only closer to what the plants see in nature, will slow the accumulation. Keeping the medium moist also helps prevent precipitation.

I don't think it's the case (and I have hundreds of customers who agree with me), but for all I know, the use of K-Lite - by itself - might be a merely "subsistence diet" for the plants, but when the KelpMax and Garden Solution are added to the regimen, they may provide enough supplementation to truly satisfy the plants without overwhelming them with ions.

In addition to the stimulating hormones and other plant growth regulators, KelpMax contains a small amount of N-P-K nutrients and trace elements, plus proteins, carbohydrates, amino acids and vitamins that plants can manufacture themselves, but can be absorbed as well. Some of those are also consumed by the beneficial bacteria in the Concentric Ag product, allowing their populations to grow.

Here's an excerpt that I think explains what the "critters" in the stuff do:

The beneficial bacteria primarily protect plants by competing with pathogenic bacteria, and exuding antibiotics into the rhizosphere that kill pathogens and prevent them from harming the plant. Additionally, as the bacteria grow and multiply, they secrete amino acids and plant growth stimulating hormones.

Beneficial fungi also compete with others and secrete antibiotics, but have the additional benefit of parasitizing them, as well. They generally do that through a mechanism of cell wall degradation, which not only kills the pathogens, but converts them into nutrients that can be taken up by the plant. Besides those, the colonization of the roots by the microorganisms offers additional, significant benefits.

As the fungi grow, they extend hyphae throughout the root zone and potting medium, and mycorrhizae directly into the plants' root cells. To fungi, hyphae are analogous to roots on a plant, and become an extensive network capable of absorbing water and nutrients. The mycorrhizae are the pathway that the fungi use to pump nutrients into the plant in exchange for sugars. As plants' roots can only absorb nutrients that are very close to them, the hyphae network plays the significant role of "extending the reach" of the roots, enabling uptake from a larger area of the host tree’s surface (or for us, in the pot). The fungal hyphae absorb water and nutrients, transfers them to the fungi, who in turn, transfer them via their mycorrhizae directly into plants' root cells. Fungal hyphae are apparently particularly good at absorbing and transferring phosphorus, copper, manganese, and zinc, helping complete the plants’ nutrient needs. Additionally, fungal hyphae can absorb and trap excessive levels of dissolved solids, precluding them from stressing the plants.


----------



## naoki (Mar 29, 2019)

Stone said:


> Yes plants need P for root production but they need it just as much for the whole plant. The old claims that P is for root growth is not true. In other words, giving more P than is necessary for the normal growth of a plant will NOT increase root growth. It has been tested in trials a number of times. But yes I agree that any standard fertilizer off the shelf of your favourite hardware store will give you the basic NPK that you need. 1-0.3-1 or 10-3-10 is about right..Yes plants need P for root production but they need it just as much for the whole plant. The old claims that P is for root growth is not true. In other words, giving more P than is necessary for the normal growth of a plant will NOT increase root growth. It has been tested in trials a number of times. But yes I agree that any standard fertilizer off the shelf of your favourite hardware store will give you the basic NPK that you need. 1-0.3-1 or 10-3-10 is about right. I use these types and add my own mix of trace elements which includes Ni which is vital if you use Urea.



Good to see you, Mike! The last time I looked into it, P can influence root growth indirectly in some species. High P discourage the development of mycorrhizal association. Plants without the association generally need to reallocate more resource toward roots. Low N also encourage the reallocation toward roots, too. And I agree P is requried by ANY living cells (e.g. to replicate DNA, transcribe to RNA, short-term energy source like ATP).

I don't see strong supports for the original idea of interference from K. But K-Lite (as well as whatever typical fertilizer) seems to work ok for me. I wouldn't say K-Lite is better or worse, and they both seem to work. As long as there is sufficient (and not excess) of each element, the composition of fertilizer doesn't seem to be too relevant. As with other environmental parameters, many (but not all) plants can flexibly acclimate to a fair range of growing conditions. After all, plants are sessil, so they can't choose the best environment. With K, different plant species have quite a bit of differences in the recycling rate. Orchids seem to have a high buffering capacity because they are super efficient for K recyclling. I don't know too much of cactus physiology, but I vaguely remember Tillandsia also high K recycling rate.


----------



## pluckerup (Mar 29, 2019)

Ray said:


> I think that there simply hasn't been enough research into the nutritional demands of individual orchids for anyone - including you and me - to say for certain what formula is "perfect" for what plants, and it can vary all over the map.


I agree entirely with this. 
I ran a fertilizer trial many years ago using a K-Lite equivalent fertilizer over many different genera, and they all had different results. Cattleyas were out of control, hard cane dendrobiums new growths was too soft and collapsed in our hot weather. I stopped the program 2 years after starting because I couldn't keep up with repotting and dividing Cattleyas every year.


----------



## gego (Mar 29, 2019)

Actually, mineral analysis were done by the guy who use to frequently post here, (sorry I can't remember his name as I'm writing this). I think he was an adviser to big nurseries in Europe. His results for paphs collected from the wild and the ones cultivated showed that the ratio of N/K/Ca is pretty much 1 found in those plants. Nitrates and micros differed. According to him he paid all those lab tests. So let us just assume that paphs like any other orchid or plants need K. If you don't believe this then dismiss my comment below.
I consider K-lite as a supplement and not really a complete diet for plants grown in an in-organic media. When a media doesn't have any of the NPK and all other nutrients, one will have to provide all of them with the right ratio. The catch here is the media, nobody talks about what and how much are there available in them. Bark has lots of K and P already. The quantity differs when new and old and the source and type of bark. Google it. There are analysis and recommended supplements to balance the nutrients already found in them.

So depending on how much K is already in the media and or what is left and its accessibility to the roots (coarse vs fine) and the amount of Ca/Mg provided to extract K from the bark will probably dictate how much N is needed to balance N/K/Ca. Note that if Ca is used to extract/exchange K then Ca quantity requirements should cover for both the plant and the exchange. 
Just an engineer's way of thinking.


----------



## gego (Mar 29, 2019)

pluckerup said:


> I agree entirely with this.
> I ran a fertilizer trial many years ago using a K-Lite equivalent fertilizer over many different genera, and they all had different results. Cattleyas were out of control, hard cane dendrobiums new growths was too soft and collapsed in our hot weather. I stopped the program 2 years after starting because I couldn't keep up with repotting and dividing Cattleyas every year.


My experience is the same but I was not using K-lite. I used a 2:1 (N:K) ratio for vandas and cattleyas. The vandas became lanky a bit but some cattleyas had soft stems/bulbs and were quite stretched that they bend over. I caught then just in time and shifted to low N. I noticed the big clumps on a wide pot full of big barks did not show any of this. But I was watching the back bulbs if they start dying.


----------



## Ray (Mar 30, 2019)

I remember something I heard in a presentation from the company that makes the ProMix series of soils, that high-K leads to embrittlement of root cells, leading to decreased penetration by fungal mycelia, hence a reduced benefit in fungi supplanting nutritional uptake.

All of my paphs and phrags are in S/H culture, so they're getting very little, if anything from the medium. As I said earlier, they have been on K-Lite for a long time, and I sincerely believe that the KelpMax and Synergo (I sure wish they'd change the name already) are significant additions.

Echoing some of Naoki's comments, I think plants are somewhat flexible in their nutrient demands as long as they get "enough", but that remains mostly undefined.


----------



## gego2 (Mar 30, 2019)

Ray, you have a good source of K from KelpMax. It just not advertized.


----------



## Stone (Mar 30, 2019)

I forgot to mention that I always add nutricote to all pots about 18-3-15 or something like that. I use liquids as a drench or spray to supplement that. But K is always ''high''. I have started adding nutricote with sand in teabags on top of mounted plants. Results are much better now showing that a constant trickle of nutrients works better than an occasional nutrient spray even if done weekly.


----------



## Ray (Mar 31, 2019)

gego2 said:


> Ray, you have a good source of K from KelpMax. It just not advertized.


Diluted at 1:250 and applied monthly, KelpMax contributes 28 mg K per month. K-Lite, when applied at 75 ppm N weekly, contributes about 12x that, making the KelpMax contribution only about 7-8% of the total. I seriously doubt that's the "make or break" factor.


----------



## gego (Apr 1, 2019)

There's not much but your roots could be soaked in it for days(SH) to take all its needed. Unlike watering where the nutrients just flush out of the pot.
You might want to send a sample for analysis to verify the amount of K in your plants. If I am in business, that would be a good thing to do.


----------



## Guldal (Jun 9, 2019)

Thanks for a very stimulating and instructive thread!

But, geee, I'm glad, my plants can't read - as I would be at a total loss, not having the necessary natural scientific background to make and defend any drastic decissions in relation to their feeding regime!

I'll probably just have to stumble along with my helter-skelter, happy-go-lucky feeding regime of Pokon: NPK 20-20-20 + a variety of trace minerals x every 3-4 weeks -with the exception of the months of mid-november to end-january, where I don't feed, as the light up here north is pityfully low. During spring and summer supplemented with a monthly addition of a wee bit of magnesium sulphate.


----------

