# Fertilizer: Less Is More



## Happypaphy7 (Jan 20, 2016)

I visited a friend of mine today and had to report this.
I gave her four orchids almost exactly one year ago, and all were doing very well. 

NOID compact phalaenopsis ( wish I knew the name because the flower to plant size ratio is great and the color is really nice) grew two large leaves and in two new spikes with many flowers.

Two plants of Tolumnia (the name is too long to list here), each with 5-6 new growths going. I have never had this happen on my Tolumnia of the similar size.

Neostylis Pinky 'Starry Night' grew about 3 new leaves and has 6 spikes going. 

All these orchids are sitting on the south window sill with no curtain and no buildings outside shading the window. 
She never fertilized them the whole one year. She actually never had live plants before, so she did what I told her to, which was to try and water them not too often but at least once a week. I had to make it simple so she would try her hands on the orchids. 

I have also grown my orchids without any fertilization for about one year, and they all performed very well. I actually cannot tell the difference, but I now fertilize because I feel better that way. 
I guess orchids have quite a bit of nutrients or elements stored inside them to last for a long time without needing much.


----------



## troy (Jan 20, 2016)

Orchids is a general word referring to 40,000 different species, I fertilize my slippers at 1/4 strength every week, with different stuff using 3/4 ro- 1/4 tap, if I don't fertilize longer than 2 weeks I get growth problems, all my plants have active growing roots


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 20, 2016)

less is more or "weakly, weekly"


----------



## Justin (Jan 20, 2016)

If you search out the K lite threads on this forum this is the point that rick has been making. That there is enough N in our tapwater to take care of most of their needs.

In my conditions a constant, dilute feed works great...1/16 tsp of 30-10-10.


----------



## monocotman (Jan 20, 2016)

*Weakly weekly*

Agree with you all.
I struggled indoors with orchids until I switched to akerne's rain mix plus rain water at every watering. The rate is very low, little more than a good pinch into a 2 gallon watering can. 
The subsequent growth improvement was astonishing. Quite how much of this is due to the low feed rate and how much due to the components of the rain mix I do not know. I am just very happy with the results. 
My best plants would now not look out of place in a well run greenhouse. 
Other things have not changed. The climate indoors is still cooler, drier and has very little air movement compared to a greenhouse. There is also less light. Not seemingly ideal but yet the plants adapt!
The only change has been the feed,
David


----------



## Linus_Cello (Jan 20, 2016)

Since moving houses in September, I haven't had a chance to fertilize (either k-lite or blossom booster). My plants seem fine, and the Ros Rawdon Jester and Gary Romanga x Sanderianum that I posted threw up a spike. Maybe for me, I don't need to fertilize since I'm using aquarium water, with lots of fish waste "organic fertilizer", to water my plants (all freshwater tropical softwater, e.g. discus).


----------



## Stone (Jan 20, 2016)

Justin said:


> > If you search out the K lite threads on this forum this is the point that rick has been making. That there is enough N in our tapwater to take care of most of their needs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Jan 20, 2016)

Mike, I think maybe the tap water he tested were from contaminated source. lol

I understand that orchids can get by with low amount of nitrogen, but if enough nitrogen is found in tap water, then that tap water has serious health concern. 
Whether one opts to drink out of the faucet or not, tap water is (and must) be tested by the authorities for certain toxins and pollutants, and as I understand, nitrogen is one of them.
It should be in extremely low amount to zero in tap water.
If not, the water has some serious contamination either or both from fertilization in the field or livestock poop runoff. 
Time to call the local water department, or sue the farmers in the area, or move to a better place. lol


----------



## Brabantia (Jan 21, 2016)

I am always surprised when I read the answers which are given on the subject “low feeding” that one never speaks about the effect of the mass roots. During the two last years I feeded to 20 ppm N once per week. I obtained plants which did not grow and which lost many leaves by translocation. End of last year I go to 40 ppm N by week. I noted a net improvement of the growth and a reduction of leaves yellowing.I must say that I never have Paphiopedilum which had the mass roots I show sometimes on this forum. My opinion is that it is necessary to fertilize sufficient to ensure the plant growth (especially if the roots mass is relatively low). Obviously while remaining in a range of salt concentrations which are not aggressive for the roots. I evaluate this concentration around 350 mgr/l.
Remainder: I am using the MSU belgian copy.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Jan 21, 2016)

Just so you know, I'm just "reporting" what I observe.
I'm not advocating any sides, but I do believe many people over-fertilize.

So these orchids of my friends, in the last one year of no fertilization, this is what happened as far as "loss" since I mentioned about the "gain" already in the very first post.

NOID phal- yellowed and lost one bottom most leaf.
Tolumnias- each lost about a couple bottom leaves.
Neostylis Pink- not a single leaf lost.

All the newer leaves on these plants are larger than the previous leaves, and the color is nice healthy green. 

In the past when I stopped fertilizing for one year (this happened my accident, and not intentionally done), I had not noticed any excessive loss of leaves, just typical yellowing of one bottom leaf per plant or zero loss. 
I had paphiopedilum of all kind except for the multis, dendrobiums of differnet sort, cymbidiums, oncidium hybrids, phalaenopsis hybrids, and other genera.
Maybe if I had gone for another year without fertilizing, things might have turned for the worse and I might have seen some effects of starvation.
This experience just made me think about how uptight many people are about fertilizing, especially when I hear people call it "plant food". 

Of course, fertilization is needed under cultivation.


----------



## paphioland (Jan 21, 2016)

To grow Paphs to potential and at maximal growth rate you need to fertilize frequently.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jan 25, 2016)

The question is "How much is enough"?........................to which there is significant divergence of opinion.

Paphioland, what is your regimen?


----------



## Rick (Jan 28, 2016)

http://pacewater.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/nitrate_removal.pdf

In this presentation a warmwater artificial wetlands was able to suck up 1.2kg N per acre per day of nitrate (the nitrate is not limiting in the system

This is equivalent to sucking up 0.0275mg of N per square foot per day.

Or if you had a Cattail or Bull Rush plant in a 6" pot its equivalent to using 0.006875mg of N per day.

So you could apply 0.6875 ml (about 13 drops) of a 100ppm N fert solution to a 6" pot and max out the nitrate need of that plant on a daily basis.


----------



## Rick (Jan 28, 2016)

http://www.upc.edu/growingmediacomp...growingmediacomposting2011.ISHS/s4-8-restrepo


----------



## Rick (Jan 28, 2016)

Need to add interpretation to the above presentation on nitrification inhibition in rose culture.


----------



## Rick (Jan 28, 2016)

The presentation on pot culture of roses in Columbia soilless media is illustrative (its not that different from orchid pot culture).


The overall conclusion was:
1) nitrifying bacteria convert ammonia to nitrate very quickly
2) whether ammonia or nitrate, the plants use very little of it with the bulk leaching out.
3) ammonia is not stored in the potting media


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Jan 29, 2016)

Rick, 

If plants use very little of nitrogen available and majority of N is leached out of soil, then why do you suggest limiting the N in your fertilizing philosophy??

For the purpose of stopping the waste of nitrogen and saving the environment?


----------



## Rick (Jan 29, 2016)

Happypaphy7 said:


> Rick,
> 
> If plants use very little of nitrogen available and majority of N is leached out of soil, then why do you suggest limiting the N in your fertilizing philosophy??
> 
> For the purpose of stopping the waste of nitrogen and saving the environment?



You might find the line in the rose presentation that they thought there were physiological problems associated with excess N.

Also high levels of N support a bacterial flora that is not conducive to root health.

Just like in aquarium culture you want to feed the fish and not feed all the bacteria scavenging the leftover fish food. You want the bacteria to eat the fish waste (which has a lot of ammonia actually).

So yes "waste not want not", but turning your pot into a cesspool isn't good for the plant either.

This appears to be why orchid folks find success in mounting or open mix systems. Very little of what you dump on the plant sticks, and what does stick is easy to wash away with subsequent non supplemented watering.

I found large pulse feeding to be a delicate balancing act which for me has very little forgiveness.


----------



## Stone (Jan 31, 2016)

Rick said:


> > So you could apply 0.6875 ml (about 13 drops) of a 100ppm N fert solution to a 6" pot and max out the nitrate need of that plant on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jan 31, 2016)

Rick said:


> > This appears to be why orchid folks find success in mounting or open mix systems. Very little of what you dump on the plant sticks, and what does stick is easy to wash away with subsequent non supplemented watering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brabantia (Feb 1, 2016)

I am astonished that my post 01/21 dit not receive any comments. It seems to me that the mass roots play a big role in elements absortion. What about one or two poor roots in presence of 10 mgr N in one litre of water. This a situation which is not so rare in Paphs culture. Maybe be growers which have good succes with low concentrations have plants with very good mass roots.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Feb 28, 2016)

Sometimes people just don't reply. Don't know why, but I am aware that this topic has already been heavily dealt with, and it tends to get really heated. so I understand many are tired and want to avoid. lol

I started this thread after what I saw at a friend's and wanted others to think about it. 

Mass roots might mean bigger specimen. 
I see multis and bulldogs ( hense section paphiopedilum) are root champions. Even as rather small plants, plants in these groups make more roots than others. 

Then parvis are pretty good root growers. 
The other groups seem to make much less with some individual exceptions, especially when they are single growth or two. 

It makes sense that plants with more roots will take in more nutrients. 
It also means bigger plants are already stronger and have more nutrient reserve in the roots and leaves? 

Paphs with only one or two roots are in big trouble.
Root attacking fungus or potting medium staying too wet too long, or just weaklings. I only occasionally see this and these of course are poor growers. 
With only one or two roots, one might want to be extra careful not to burn those away. 

Speaking of one or two root plants, even tiny seedlings ( great majority of them)from a flask usually have a multiple roots, at least that's what I observe.


----------



## Bjorn (Feb 28, 2016)

Just one comment; if we assume that paphs grow best when conditions mimic conditions found in nature where they grow,,,,,,why do some of us think that in nature, nutrients are only available once a week? And that adding larger amounts compensates for those days without feeding?
My point is that low TDS feeding should be a continous thing, not just every saturday or whatever.
Thanks....


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Feb 28, 2016)

I understand. 
But fertilizing is done with watering under cultivation. 
Not everyone grows plants in a way that plants can be watered nearly every day.
oke: 
No roots will be left before long. 

So, it's not just watering ( hence fertilizing) frequency, but the whole package, which I doubt can be reproduced.


----------



## Bjorn (Feb 28, 2016)

If you believe in the concept,,,,,,,everything is possible. If not, then ,,,not.
Ok, I am not proposing to increase watering frequency, but to have all water with fertiliser. That should be manageable. However due to lower rootmass, I do agree that higher fertiliser levels than found in nature may be applied. Personally I use N of approx. 15ppm with occasional kelp adeed. That is probably on the brink of too little, but has been ok for a year or so. Perhaps I will increase to e.g. 25ppm, time will tell......


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Feb 28, 2016)

Yes, i do believe it is possible, but very difficult to achieve. 
I think the way you grow is quite close, at least closer than many other growers.

Perhaps, attach things like henryanum, helenae, charlesworthii for example on rock with lots of crevice, fill them with little moss and sand.
Automated sprinkler system water them lightly in the early morning imitating the morning few, then water heavily during the day while warmer months. 
Adjust the temperature accordingly,,, but then what about other non orchid plants and micro organisms that are present in their natural habitat?
How might that be achieved? 

Regarding root mass, I remember seeing the root mass on wild paph. delenatii and some brachys. It was shockingly large!!! And these were all pretty much single growth plants too! 
So they must help gather every little benefits from all around them.

You already grow plants very well, but I would love to see any change in results after feeding at that level. 
One year later?? It might still be rather vague though if there will be an improvement, because plants will be now older and perhaps grow stronger any how.

One must have two groups at the same time to better tell any influence.


----------



## C. Rothschild (Feb 28, 2016)

*my fertilzer mix.*

As somewhat of a beginner I don't really understand all the components in plant food. If I feed them I use trace amount of various orchid food mixed with liquid seaweed (pretty safe but stains the carpets and everything else). Occasionally I'll add root-stimulator but only on orchids with very poor root systems. I don't think it works but it's more of a last resort.


----------



## Stone (Feb 28, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> Ju
> 
> 
> > if we assume that paphs grow best when conditions mimic conditions found in nature where they grow,,,,,,
> ...


----------



## troy (Feb 29, 2016)

I also flush every week midweek when pot drys out in summer months and feed 1/4 strength every week alternating ferts with great success, pots full of active roots, although there is more variables that contributes to good root growth but watering is huge


----------



## Bjorn (Feb 29, 2016)

Mike, whether or not plants grow better in nature can of course be discussed forever. Evolution has however adopted them to the conditions in which they live, everyone should agree on that
Whether or not it is possible to make them grow "better" under artificial conditions (i.e. conditions deviating from "natural") is of course a matter of dispute and no-one of us really know the answer.
In my perception, supplying nutrients at low levels has two main effects; one is to stimulate root growth, makes the plant produce more roots, the second is to avoid degradation of the compost.
I rarely repot, I have plants that has been in the same pot for more than 20 years (only a few that is right)
I do not flush intentionally. Occasionally I give the plants a thorough watering with the hose (not trying to avoid water in the crown btw). I probably water too much generally. And all my water contains a low dose of nutrients. Not ultralow, but low (e.g. 60-70ppm TDS). That is way more than in nature, but my roots are not big enough to sustain "natural" fertiliser levels.
Another thing; based on old knowledge, it is said that orchids should receive 1/4 to 1/10 of fertiliser strength (among others, the Bakers suggest that). This is probably based on fertilisation of crops like tomatos etc. Tomatos like approximately 1000ppm fertiliser, this equals a N Level of 100-200 ppm. So, with 125ppm N, where is the recommended 1/4 - 1/10 strength? Just wondering.oke:


----------



## Ray (Feb 29, 2016)

Bjorn said:


> In my perception, supplying nutrients at low levels has two main effects; one is to stimulate root growth, makes the plant produce more roots, the second is to avoid degradation of the compost.




And, in my opinion, it allows you to flush at every watering by default, it provides the greater volume of water that drives plant growth, and, as the water is drawn through and out of the pot by gravity, it draws extra air through the medium.


----------



## terryros (Feb 29, 2016)

We don't talk very much about the effects of our growing media on the fertilizer issue. Our discussions of frequency and concentration seem to imply an almost inert potting medium, which can't be true. Doesn't moisture retention have to affect watering frequency? How much of various nutrients are retained in various media for continuing use by the plant after the initial root saturation? A grower in pure sphagnum moss probably can't use the same fertigation routine as a grower in pure Orchiata bark.

For the last two years I have used a mixture of milled sphagnum moss and Growstones for all of my orchids (Paphs, Phrags, Phals, Catts), which are potted in Rands AirCone pots. I chose this deliberately to be able to reduce fertigation frequency to every 7-14 days for all plants. I use 60-70 ppm N in each watering, but this could be every 10-14 days for a number of plants depending on how fast they dry out. I always hope that nutrients from the watering continue to be available to the plants over the interval, but have no evidence to back this up.

This routine seems to be enough for good growth and blooming of the listed genera, but how could I not be irrational and wonder, "If this much is good, can't more be better?" Of course, maybe I could further lower the fertilizer concentration. I am not young enough or a large enough grower to formally experiment, so I guess and check each year with little changes and hope I am not making things up.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Feb 29, 2016)

Fertilizer, or elements plants need, are taken up with water, so I see what you're saying when you point out "I always hope that nutrients from the watering continue to be available to the plants over the interval, but have no evidence to back this up."

But then again, I don't think plants have to be constantly fed everytime, althoguh everytime they are watered, there will be something in the water, unless one waters his or her plants with pure water in inert mix, which won't be good.

There are many different practice and people swear by their ways, but what is clear is that they do not have to be fed all the time.
My largest specimens (my Armeni White with well over 20 growths now and many bulldog hybrids that grow like weeds) and best growers are fed only a few times a year. Usually once or twice a month during the active growing season, and I usually water about every five days or so depending on plants' need.

Another thing is, since you mentioned interaction between different potting mix and fertilizer, this has been talked about before. I'm not sure how complete the understanding in this area is, but it is quite well studied I think. Search around and see if you can find it, not just on this forum but internet in general.
I wish I could give you the details, but memory is not clear and I rather not mess up. 

While it may not be perfect, I think there is a good reason why bark chips have been in use for such a long time. 
That should tell you a lot as well.

Yet another thing to consider is that plants will usually fare well as long as pH range is not too extreme as I remember reading about how roots excrete chemicals to maintain optimum pH range just around their roots.
I grew in striaght moss, bark, or mix of this and that, and I did not really see any difference in plant performance.
The main difference was that I had to water them differently.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Mar 2, 2016)

Both Mike and Bjorn have good points.

I don't think plants in cultivation grow better necessarily, but it might be more correct to say along the line of when right plants (since individual plants of the same species or cross show different vigor and adaptibility) are grown at the right conditions (whether this is natural or artificial situation) they will grow very well.

I see in-situ pictures where plants are all half dead eaten up by bugs and fungal spots all over, while some are a great scattering of single growth plants, and then there are some huge specimens.

Same with plants in cultivation.
Some grow very well and many are so so and some just super crappy. lol


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2016)

*Ignorance is Bliss*

Or shall I say "Ignoring it" is apparently "Bliss"?

So I have this "seedling incubator" in my basement. 3' x 6' x 4' tall, it is illuminated by two 4' Philips Blue/Far Red LED strips on a 14 hr/day timer, and watered 2x a day for 90 seconds with a Mist King system that sprays nothing but pure RO. Definitely an extreme case of "Less is More".

In February of last year, I got in a bunch of Amesiella monticola plugs that were blooming size. I put them in sphagnum in 3" net pots, watered them in with KelpMax & Inocucor Garden Solution, and sold most of them right away. There was one that was the "runt of the litter", so I stuck it in the incubator.

In the 13 months I've had it, this plant has seen nothing but pure water after the initial watering. I have absolutely ignored it.

The moss is growing wild, but the plant is apparently pretty happy, having one open blossom and two buds.


----------



## Ozpaph (Mar 4, 2016)

Like plants in flask, eventually it will exhaust its nutrient supply.


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 5, 2016)

I do not know this species, but looks good and the moss thrives as well sooner or later it will have exhausted its nutrient supply, but this is one example of what I try to convey; namely that orchids grow in places deficient of nutrients. Some paphs share the same environment with nepethes, another low fertiliser genous. So why give them excessively much more fertiliser?


----------



## Ray (Mar 5, 2016)

My point in posting this - and this was absolutely not a planned experiment- was to support the "less is more" concept. "Zero" is not "more".


----------



## gonewild (Mar 5, 2016)

Ray said:


> My point in posting this - and this was absolutely not a planned experiment- was to support the "less is more" concept. "Zero" is not "more".



And it supports my position that orchids receive nutrients from living moss and other living organisms in forms of compounds that are not dissolved salts. oke:


----------



## Ray (Mar 5, 2016)

...and upon what information I provided tells you that? Poke yourself.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 5, 2016)

Ray said:


> ...and upon what information I provided tells you that? Poke yourself.



All the info tells that if you listen to it.

The fact that you have not fertilized.
The fact that you have living moss which indicates a healthy environment.
The fact that plants do require nutrients to grow.

Since you have not added nutrients and the plant is growing well my theory is that the moss itself and/or organisms it harbors are producing the nutrients the plant needs to grow. Further since if you measure the flow through you would likely report there are basically no dissolved nutrient salts then it is likely the nutrients are being supplied in a form other than NPK dissolved elements (amino acids, ect).

From what I've seen over the years and what people report when there are plants that people have growing extremely well without ever fertilizing them there is also a very well established "living" environment around the roots and foliage (as in Nature). I doubt the plant would have grown so well if it had been in pure LECA rather than living moss.

That is why some people have luck with using very little fertilizer and others don't.


----------



## Ray (Mar 5, 2016)

Just having fun with you, Lance.

In addition to the "cogeneration" of nutrients by other plants, I think decomposition of some of the dead moss may play a role as well, and the decomposition and release of nutrients might be supported by the "critters" introduced through the Inocucor product.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 5, 2016)

Ray said:


> Just having fun with you, Lance.
> 
> In addition to the "cogeneration" of nutrients by other plants, I think decomposition of some of the dead moss may play a role as well, and the decomposition and release of nutrients might be supported by the "critters" introduced through the Inocucor product.



 I know it's all in fun. If it weren't I would not say anything.

Yes the decomposing moss surely provides nutrients but the moss had to get the nutrients from somewhere to be able to grow its self and also the orchid.
I think the Inocucor does exactly that, creates an environment that the organisms can establish in. It may also provide residues of the "other" compounds that I refer to that the plant can utilize as nutrition. The same with seaweed extract which provides amino acids and similar compounds that give the plants an immediate supply of nutrients.


----------

