# Prime Agra New vs. Old



## gonewild (Feb 22, 2007)

I would like to hear peoples opinions and experiences with the new PrimeAgra.


----------



## bwester (Feb 22, 2007)

From my previous post:
That new crap made me take every plant i own that it didnt kill out of s/h. It is aweful, pathetic for an s/h media. I still hold to my belief that ray made the switch purely for financial gain and I dont believe for a second that he worked with the manufacturer to "improve" it.
Screw ray and his expensive crappy rocks!!!
sorry for my rant..... the loss of so many plants due to that stuff makes me real emotional.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 22, 2007)

OK Blake it is time for therapy. Get your emotions out. oke: 

What were your observations with the new PA? How did it kill so many plants? What were the symptoms?

Please let's all offer ideas and comments to evaluate this product.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 23, 2007)

Can someone please post photos of both.


----------



## bwester (Feb 23, 2007)

Well, I had EXTREME salt build-ups on the new only. Plus every plant in the new started to have severely rotted roots. It wicked entirely too much and seemed to drown the plants. I experienced none of this with the old stuff.


----------



## Candace (Feb 23, 2007)

The new looks very different from the old, per Lance's prior post. I was actually surprised it looked so different. Like aliflor but from what Blake says, wicks much more than aliflor does. I haven't had to order any in quite some time, so I can't comment on the new stuff. I wonder if the old stuff is even made anymore, and maybe those who really want it back should tell Ray about their experiences.


----------



## Inverness (Feb 23, 2007)

I have paphs, phrags, phals, catts, and others in both the old and new mix. My plants are all under HID from compot to mature size (approximately 500 plants). All are cared for on the same routine. Not having any problems. Still seeing excellent root and shoot growth.

Ken B.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 23, 2007)

Here is the pictures of the new and old PrimeAgra:

Old is on the left and new is on the right.


----------



## Ron-NY (Feb 23, 2007)

The new stuff looks much like hydroton but darker in color. I haven't used either but have used hydroton without a problem.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 23, 2007)

bwester said:


> Well, I had EXTREME salt build-ups on the new only. Plus every plant in the new started to have severely rotted roots. It wicked entirely too much and seemed to drown the plants. I experienced none of this with the old stuff.



I think the extra wicking is one of the "improvements" Ray claims for the new PA. If there is good air space within the media it does not seem like the extra moisture should cause a problem with the roots.

If your pots have a reservoir did you notice if the water level dropped faster than with the old PA?

Did you do any kind of test to determine if there was actually more salt build up? Or did you go by only the visible appearance?

How long were the plants that died in the new PA?
Did you also pot up other plants at the same time with the old PA?

Did all the plants you potted with the new PA die?

Did you use coarse or fine PA?

What size pots did you have the problem with?

Where the plants that died new acquisitions or repotted plants you had had for some time?

Where the dead plants transfered from organic media into the new PA?

What is your fertilizer regime?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 23, 2007)

Ron-NY said:


> The new stuff looks much like hydroton but darker in color. I haven't used either but have used hydroton without a problem.



Does hydroton have some irregular rough shaped pebbles or is it uniformly spherical?


----------



## Ron-NY (Feb 23, 2007)

It is mostly spherical except for some broken material. They are not all the same size


----------



## gonewild (Feb 23, 2007)

Ron-NY said:


> It is mostly spherical except for some broken material. They are not all the same size



Then the new PA must be different from hydroton in the manufacture process.


----------



## Ron-NY (Feb 23, 2007)

most likely. Hydroton is carried by hydroponic stores in my area so I started with that years ago and haven't had any complaints so I continue with it.


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Feb 23, 2007)

I have a couple of plants coming in a couple of weeks that are currently in s/h. I am not certain what media they are in, I will have to ask. I am anxious to see what the answers are to the questions asked.


----------



## Heather (Feb 23, 2007)

I have been growing for about a year in old Prime Agra exclusively. Not looking to switch to anything else soon.


----------



## Candace (Feb 23, 2007)

The new stuff does look more like hydroton but darker(like Ron said). The thing is, is that what I like least about hydroton is the uniform, ball shape. The hydroton is forever rolling out of the pots if I get a bit over exuberant in my watering. If I happen to tip a pot over, if the plant is fairly new and not rooted well yet, the stuff goes everywhere. I liked how the old primeagra stayed put. I probably use more hydroton than primeagra, so I've learned to live with it. It's amazing what you put up with when it's available locally and cheaper:wink: 

I will most likely try the new media eventually, but I'll experiment like I do with any new media. On only a few healthy plants(that aren't treasured) and see what happens.


----------



## bwester (Feb 23, 2007)

If your pots have a reservoir did you notice if the water level dropped faster than with the old PA?
--Yes!!! the new ones dried up more than twice as fast!!!
Did you do any kind of test to determine if there was actually more salt build up? Or did you go by only the visible appearance?
--A test was not needed, there was a thick caking of crystals on the top of the media. 
How long were the plants that died in the new PA?
--The paphs died fast, the phrags held on for a month or so
Did you also pot up other plants at the same time with the old PA?
--Yes, I am a scientist. I did it very analytical. the same thing to each type. including some divisions of the same plant, one in the old and one in the new.
Did all the plants you potted with the new PA die?
--All but one, a phrag.
Did you use coarse or fine PA?
--the standard one ray ships
What size pots did you have the problem with?
--all sizes that ray sells
Where the plants that died new acquisitions or repotted plants you had had for some time?
--both
Where the dead plants transfered from organic media into the new PA?
--yes
What is your fertilizer regime?
--MSU 125ppm N


----------



## Candace (Feb 23, 2007)

What medium are you using now??


----------



## gonewild (Feb 23, 2007)

bwester said:


> If your pots have a reservoir did you notice if the water level dropped faster than with the old PA?
> --Yes!!! the new ones dried up more than twice as fast!!!



So the new PA must wick water twice as fast (much) as the old PA. That would mean it also may hold twice as much water.

In our culture we don't rely on the water reservoir to supply all the water since we water lightly a couple times per day, so we don't notice the water level drop. However I would agree with you that the new PA evaporates water faster because it does take longer for us to water the new PA to overflow level.

It may be that the new PA tends to have an actual film of water on the pebble surface where as the old PA was simply moist. 

A film of water constantly on the root could possible cause the old roots on freshly converted plants to rot?



> Did you do any kind of test to determine if there was actually more salt build up? Or did you go by only the visible appearance?
> --A test was not needed, there was a thick caking of crystals on the top of the media.



I do notice more white crystals on the new PA but it appears to me that the are actually about the same as the old PA but show up better on the black pebbles. It stands to reason if the new PA evaporates water twice as fast it would accumulate twice as much salt crystals. Here again we don't find this a problem because we water frequently. 

On this point I would disagree with you and suggest you do need a scientific measurement of the salts to determine if that is what caused the problem. Even to the extent to know if the crystals caking on the surface are toxic to the roots.



> How long were the plants that died in the new PA?
> --The paphs died fast, the phrags held on for a month or so



Do you mean the plants went from healthy to dead in 30 days?
How quickly did the first plants die? And by dead do you mean "dead"?



> Did you also pot up other plants at the same time with the old PA?
> --Yes, I am a scientist. I did it very analytical. the same thing to each type. including some divisions of the same plant, one in the old and one in the new
> 
> Did all the plants you potted with the new PA die?
> --All but one, a phrag.



Was your experiment limited to paphs and phrags or did other genera die as well?



> Did you use coarse or fine PA?
> --the standard one ray ships
> What size pots did you have the problem with?
> --all sizes that ray sells



Did plants die faster or slower between large and small pots?



> Where the plants that died new acquisitions or repotted plants you had had for some time?
> --both



How many plants were affected?



> Where the dead plants transfered from organic media into the new PA?
> --yes



Did you move any established plants from the old PA to the new PA?



> What is your fertilizer regime?
> --MSU 125ppm N



Do you use RO water?


A few more questions....

How did you treat the new PA before you used it? 
Did you soak it or in any way wash it?

How often did you water the plants in the new PA?

Did you get any feedback from Ray about your problem?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 23, 2007)

Candace said:


> The new stuff does look more like hydroton but darker(like Ron said). The thing is, is that what I like least about hydroton is the uniform, ball shape. The hydroton is forever rolling out of the pots if I get a bit over exuberant in my watering. If I happen to tip a pot over, if the plant is fairly new and not rooted well yet, the stuff goes everywhere. I liked how the old primeagra stayed put. I probably use more hydroton than primeagra, so I've learned to live with it. It's amazing what you put up with when it's available locally and cheaper:wink:
> 
> I will most likely try the new media eventually, but I'll experiment like I do with any new media. On only a few healthy plants(that aren't treasured) and see what happens.



I agree. The rough shape of the old PA was perfect. I don't like the new more spherical shape.

How does the wicking of hydroton compare to the old PA for you? Does it use about the same amount of water?


----------



## Candace (Feb 24, 2007)

The hydroton wicks much less, that's for sure. The bottom 1/3 is moist and the top 2/3 on the drier side. Where the old primeagra has a wetter gradient. But, any orchids that were able to tap into that bottom layer of hydroton responded well. I grow a lot of cattleya genera so they have taken to both the hydroton and primeagra well. I've noticed my paphs seem to do better in the primeagra. A good percentage of my paphs are in primeagra because of this. Perhaps if I used the smaller grade of hydroton I 'd see a negligible difference. I use mainly the coarser grade hydroton, I have that at hand. Maybe the finer grade hydroton would perform as well as the primeagra, but I've not experimented with it.


----------



## bwester (Feb 24, 2007)

Candace said:


> What medium are you using now??


4 parts fine chc
2 parts rockwool
2 parts fine aliflor
1 part med aliflor
1 part charcoal
2 parts lava rock


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Feb 24, 2007)

Has anyone ever tried lava as a growing medium for s/h? I know that in the smaller sizes there is the compaction issue, but what about the larger sizes? Has anyone ever at least done a wicking experiment?

I know that lava in my bonsai mixes sure helps keep the soil damp a lot longer than just bark does.


----------



## Candace (Feb 24, 2007)

Lava doesn't wick much at all, so isn't the best choice for s/h.. that said cattleyas will grow in most anything and aren't too picky. If you've got it already, try it with some hardier genera. I would suggest using the "good stuff" on your paphs and phrags.


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Feb 24, 2007)

Candace said:


> Lava doesn't wick much at all, so isn't the best choice for s/h.. that said cattleyas will grow in most anything and aren't too picky. If you've got it already, try it with some hardier genera. I would suggest using the "good stuff" on your paphs and phrags.



It seems the jury is still out on whether the new stuff is the good stuff???


----------



## Candace (Feb 24, 2007)

True.... I'm glad I've got the old primeagra to recycle.


----------



## couscous74 (Feb 24, 2007)

Lava is also heavy as hell...


----------



## johnndc (Feb 25, 2007)

Actually, I've had great success with lava. I now mix it into most of my semi-hydro blends. I've tried Ray's stuff, then hydroton (which didn't stay nearly wet enough, though it wasn't bad for catts (for that very reason)), then I bought a big 40 pound bag of leca or whatever from Crop King - I swear it looks just like Ray's stuff to me. Anyway, used ONLY lava, pretty large pieces at that, with two "Sharry Baby"s that love it. Have a lava/hydroton mix for a few catts, that love it. I've also used smaller lava I got from tindara, I think, and mixed it with either small hydroton from Tindara or the Crop King stuff for a number of paph seedlings, large papsh and phrags, also threw in some small sized diatomite. Michael Koopowitz loving it, jason fischer, loving it, lynn-evans goldner, ditto. I've not used pure lava for anything other than the two Sharry Babys, I'm pretty sure. But mixing it with the other stuff has been great.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 25, 2007)

IdahoOrchid said:


> Has anyone ever tried lava as a growing medium for s/h? I know that in the smaller sizes there is the compaction issue, but what about the larger sizes? Has anyone ever at least done a wicking experiment?
> 
> I know that lava in my bonsai mixes sure helps keep the soil damp a lot longer than just bark does.



I think Ray has published many wicking tests using different materials on his website. As I recall he included lava in those tests. Lava will wick to some degree but not enough to supply the plants total needs.

I have tested pumice side by side with PA and found in 4"tall pots it wicks very well. It does grow algae very fast. Probably because it is not completely inert.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 25, 2007)

IdahoOrchid said:


> It seems the jury is still out on whether the new stuff is the good stuff???



The case has not gone to jury yet, we need to gather more evidence.

So far Blake is the only one to post problems with the new PA. Obviously he had a serious problem with the plants he put in it. I have a couple ideas as to what the problems might be but we need to give Blake a chance to answer my other questions and to participate in the discussion.

It would be great if Ray jumped in as well to offer some defense to his product.

Surely more forum members have used the new PA. Let's here your comments, good, bad, or even if you don't notice anything about the new PrimeAgra.


----------



## Kyle (Feb 25, 2007)

Heres a silly question that I've never seemed asked. 

Has anyone tried mixing two different types of LECA. From reading these posts, the new PA wicks to much and hydrotron doesn't wick as much as desired. What about a 50-50 mix?

I have three paphs and 2 phrags in hydrotron for probably 2 years. They do OK, but I think the top is to dry and new roots die. I might try putting a layer of sphag on top to keet that area moist. In hte future I would make my resorvoir deeper then 1 inch.

Kyle


----------



## gonewild (Feb 25, 2007)

Kyle said:


> Heres a silly question that I've never seemed asked.
> 
> Has anyone tried mixing two different types of LECA. From reading these posts, the new PA wicks to much and hydrotron doesn't wick as much as desired. What about a 50-50 mix?



That could be a possible solution if in fact the new PA is really too wet. But that has not been determined. 

But mixing a "too dry" type with a "too wet" type might not work to make a good average and would be way to complicated for most users to manage.

The sad part is that at least in my opinion the old PA was working perfectly.



> I have three paphs and 2 phrags in hydrotron for probably 2 years. They do OK, but I think the top is to dry and new roots die. I might try putting a layer of sphag on top to keet that area moist. In hte future I would make my resorvoir deeper then 1 inch.
> 
> Kyle


[/QUOTE]

I find the surface of the old PA also too dry for new roots of small seedlings. For this reason we mist often throughout the day. On more established plants the new roots seemed to survive fine. But we still mist them as well.

I think Ray has made mention that he waters daily, so maybe he does not even depend on wicking to keep the total media at the correct level

Won't raising the reservoir level give you a smaller root growing area that is not flooded?


----------



## Candace (Feb 25, 2007)

I've mixed them but not on purpose. I've repotted a few plants that were growing in primeagra and forgot that I didn't have any more. So the inside of the pot is primeagra and outside is hydroton. Mixing the leca may be a good option if the new PA seems to wet for your liking. 


As for the lava, many Hawaiian growers use it because it doesn't absorb much water. They get rain almost every day and the lava keeps the plants from rotting. As for using it for s/h growing, there are much better alternatives out there.


----------



## Kyle (Feb 25, 2007)

gonewild said:


> Won't raising the reservoir level give you a smaller root growing area that is not flooded?



Yes. But the 'pots' I am using are plastic beer cups. They have a slight taper, so the resorvoir is actually quite small and doesn't hold much water at all. My 3 paphs all have roots growing into the water. And of course so do the phrags, but thats to be expected.

Putting more thought into the mixing idea, maybe the ratio wouldn't be 50-50. More like 75-25 (more PA) The hydrotron would wick water from the wet PA. 

Or hydrotron at the very bottom (in the reservoir) and PA ontop. That way the PA would be limited in the amount of water available to wick. Sure wish I had some PA to play with.

Kyle


----------



## Candace (Feb 25, 2007)

Maybe Blake's got some he'll part with.:evil:


----------



## gonewild (Feb 25, 2007)

Kyle said:


> Yes. But the 'pots' I am using are plastic beer cups. They have a slight taper, so the resorvoir is actually quite small and doesn't hold much water at all. My 3 paphs all have roots growing into the water. And of course so do the phrags, but thats to be expected.
> 
> Putting more thought into the mixing idea, maybe the ratio wouldn't be 50-50. More like 75-25 (more PA) The hydrotron would wick water from the wet PA.
> 
> ...



It certainly could work well mixed. But I think blending it would be most effective. Layering it would be a potting nightmare and would not allow for easy reuse of the media.

But first we need to determine if in fact the new PA is too wet or not. So far there has been only one person report a problem.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 25, 2007)

:rollhappy:


Candace said:


> Maybe Blake's got some he'll part with.:evil:


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Feb 25, 2007)

gonewild said:


> I think Ray has published many wicking tests using different materials on his website. As I recall he included lava in those tests.



The materials he did his side by side study with are: TWFKI (a Taiwanese product), Aliflor, PrimeAgra and Stalite. He did not use Hydrotron or lava in any of his testing that I could find.


----------



## Candace (Feb 25, 2007)

TWFKI (a Taiwanese product) I believe is hydroton. It's marketed under a couple of different names.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 25, 2007)

IdahoOrchid said:


> The materials he did his side by side study with are: TWFKI (a Taiwanese product), Aliflor, PrimeAgra and Stalite. He did not use Hydrotron or lava in any of his testing that I could find.



It has been a while since I read Rays articles. I think somewhere he made mention of lava and that it did not wick enough to qualify for testing. I could be mistaken though. 

In any case I'll suggest that lava does not wick enough to be used as a traditional s/h media. If you use the right size lava pebbles it will work great as a media. But be prepared to water frequently. If you do this you will be growing hydroponically. Can't call it s/h because Ray owns that trademark I hear.


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 25, 2007)

I don't use lava rock for S/H, but I do have several orchids from the Catt, Vanda and Den families in it. I find that the surface with all it's little holes hold quite a lot of water, but the chunkiness lets a lot of air circulate through the root system. These plants seem to like it. (I'm using the red lava rock from landscaping companies -- rinse it well before I use it.)


----------



## bwester (Feb 26, 2007)

Candace said:


> Maybe Blake's got some he'll part with.:evil:


 Blake has quite a bit, but i felt that using it as ground cover for my GH at least gave me a partial feeling that i got something for my money.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

I did some comparison tests between the New and Old PrimeAgra.

Here are my test results.....

My tap water is 332 ppm.
My RO water is 18 ppm.
My fertilizer solution is 538 ppm.

New PrimeAgra soaked, 25 liter box of fine grade PA was soaked in about 50 liters of tap water for a period of about 6 weeks:
The water it soaked in now measures *1254 ppm*.

Both New and Old PrimeAgra soaked for 48 hours in tap water and rinsed then used in pots with seedlings for about 6 weeks grown side by side and watered with fertilizer solution daily:
New PrimeAgra reservoir water = *851 ppm*
Old PrimeAgra reservoir water = *412 ppm*

New and Old PrimeAgra soaked for about 6 weeks in tap water and used with new seedlings for 1 week, watered several times daily with RO water:
New PrimeAgra reservoir water = *576 ppm*
Old PrimeAgra reservoir water = *284 ppm*

Old PrimeAgra in pots with seedlings for 8 months watered daily with fertilizer solution:
Reservoir water = *448 ppm*


----------



## Candace (Feb 27, 2007)

Lance, you do prewash your media, don't you? I know I wash my hydroton and primeagra many times, until the water runs clear. 

A couple of things...
1) I think your fertilizer solution tds is high. I flush with pure R.O. water often and I try to keep my tds in the 150 range. Yours is significantly higher than mine.???

2) If you don't prewash your media until it runs clear this will increase your tds. 
3) If you DO prewash your media well, this is an interesting result.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

Candace said:


> Lance, you do prewash your media, don't you? I know I wash my hydroton and primeagra many times, until the water runs clear.



Yes. I soak the PA in water until I use it. Then before use I rinse it until it is clear.



> A couple of things...
> 1) I think your fertilizer solution tds is high. I flush with pure R.O. water often and I try to keep my tds in the 150 range. Yours is significantly higher than mine.???



My fertilizer is carefully where I want it. I use MSU at a N rate of about 100 ppm. Is your total tds 150 or is that your nitrogen level? I want my N level to be at 100 at all times. I rarely flush with pure RO water.



> 2) If you don't prewash your media until it runs clear this will increase your tds.



It should not increase the tds. The media should not come with soluable salts. But as I said I do soak and rinse and in my notes you will read that it is pre soaked.



> 3) If you DO prewash your media well, this is an interesting result.



Yes! What the result shows is that the New PA has more salts under the same conditions as the old PA. I did side by side comparisons, the media was prepared using the same methods and one result was:
New PrimeAgra reservoir water = 851 ppm
Old PrimeAgra reservoir water = 412 ppm
The only source for the extra content is the New PA. 

I have just completed these measurements and have not really thought the results through. But I can see where this could be a problem, especially if a person relies on wicking for all the watering of the plant (I don't). The new PA may require a lot more flushing. But it also should not be leaching salts as it seems to be doing based on my measurements.


----------



## bwester (Feb 27, 2007)

Do you mean the plants went from healthy to dead in 30 days?
--Correct. All had new roots when potted too. 
How quickly did the first plants die? And by dead do you mean "dead"?
--The first one was dead as a doornail in a week. I took it as a fluke, then more and more......
Was your experiment limited to paphs and phrags or did other genera die as well?
--no, catts, bifrenaria, angraecum.... fairly wide range of plants. All met with the same results.
Did plants die faster or slower between large and small pots?
--smaller pots died faster, taller pots slower, which makes sense.
How many plants were affected?
--all in all a little over 50
Did you move any established plants from the old PA to the new PA?
--yes, they hated it too, took longer to rot though
Do you use RO water?
--yes
A few more questions....

How did you treat the new PA before you used it? 
--thoroughly washed and soaked with KLN overnight
Did you soak it or in any way wash it?
--yes
How often did you water the plants in the new PA?
--when they dried out ever couple days.
Did you get any feedback from Ray about your problem?
--no, he ignored my emails..


----------



## NYEric (Feb 27, 2007)

*To PA or not to PA*

Wow. bwebster, I'm sorry to read about all the problems w/ PA you had. I personally dont think straight PA is the way to go. The plants that I'm having the most problems w/ actually came from s/h growers. I hope a large grower [also independent, i.e. no financial gain from the results] would do a [long term] comparison w/ diff mixes.


----------



## Candace (Feb 27, 2007)

Lance, my total is 150. I've always been warned about going higher increases leaf tip burn and die back. Since my greenhouse is bursting at the seams with healthy, blooming orchids I'm probably not going to mess with a good thing for me.

I would recommend flushing occasionally with straight R.O. I would think this should help keep the tds lower.

Do you heavily flush the pots when you water or fill the resevoirs? 

I guess this means you'd better watch your new babies closely. Or send them to me, I'd make a good mother, I promise.oke: 

Blake, I'm sorry to hear about you losing so many plants. I don't want to rub salt in wounds by saying this, but is there a reason you switched over so many plants into it at once? Do you still have some of the old PA you're using?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

bwester said:


> How often did you water the plants in the new PA?
> --when they dried out ever couple days.



During the short time the plants began to die....

Did you flush the pots with RO water?
or 
Did you flush the pots with fertilizer solution?
or 
Did you not flush the pots at alll and simply add water as needed?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

NYEric said:


> Wow. bwebster, I'm sorry to read about all the problems w/ PA you had. I personally dont think straight PA is the way to go. The plants that I'm having the most problems w/ actually came from s/h growers. I hope a large grower [also independent, i.e. no financial gain from the results] would do a [long term] comparison w/ diff mixes.



I doubt that a large independent grower will ever do a test of PrimeAgra. The material is too costly for large scale use. Commercial growers tend to test materials that may be a cheaper source for product components. Tests have been done forever to compare different mixes and the results almost always point to the fact that the mix content is nowhere near as important as is the growing methods of the grower. 

Eric, can you outline the problems you are having with plants that came from s/h growers?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

Candace said:


> Lance, my total is 150. I've always been warned about going higher increases leaf tip burn and die back. Since my greenhouse is bursting at the seams with healthy, blooming orchids I'm probably not going to mess with a good thing for me.



I have no doubt your plants are growing great. How do you measure the 150?
How do you apply fertilizer? How much fertilizer per gallon?



> I would recommend flushing occasionally with straight R.O. I would think this should help keep the tds lower.



Please understand, I am not growing my plants using the resivoir/wicking feature associated with the s/h method. My plants get several irrigations daily and this keeps the pots constantly flushed.



> Do you heavily flush the pots when you water or fill the resevoirs?



I think maybe you are missing the point. Reguardless of how the pots are flushed the new PA has 2 times the tds as compared to the old PA. The side by side tests showed this as a result, all pots are flushed or not flushed exactly the same.



> I guess this means you'd better watch your new babies closely. Or send them to me, I'd make a good mother, I promise.oke:



I always watch my plants closely.  I'm not having problems with the PrimeAgra, new or old. But thanks for the offer to adopt the babies.  

I did these tests because Blake blamed the new PA for his plant loss. As far as I'm concerned the old PA is one of the best growing medias I have found in my lifetime of growing. I'm not convinced the true s/h method with reservoir is the best method to grow plants and that may be where Blake got into trouble.

I'm am not condemning the new PA. But based on Blake's experience and now with the tests I've done it appears it should not be used exactly like the old PA. The salt levels are not high enough to be a problem in my culture. But my measurements support Blake's claim and believe me that is not the results I was looking for.  



> Blake, I'm sorry to hear about you losing so many plants. I don't want to rub salt in wounds by saying this, but is there a reason you switched over so many plants into it at once? Do you still have some of the old PA you're using?



I'm not trying to answer for Blake but it is my understanding he was very happy with the old PA.


----------



## Candace (Feb 27, 2007)

I use a TDS reader. I use many different types of fertilizers but it usually works out to 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. per gallon.

If you aren't using resevoirs this isn't s/h . You are using regular pots with holes at the bottom? If so, this is watering frequently, but not a constant resevoir of water that the roots sit in(which Ray coined as s/H). Maybe I'm incorrectly remembering that you stated you grew in S/H.

If you're flushing with heavily fertilized water twice daily, I'd like to see what happens when you flush with R.O. water occasionally. It doesn't suprise my your tds readings high since your water is so high in tds to start with.

Why do you feel you have to water with fertilizer upon every watering??


----------



## Candace (Feb 27, 2007)

Yes, I know Blake was happy with the old PA. But, it's smart that when switching over to any newer medium that you take it slowly and experiment with a few plants to see what happens. Not 50 at once.


----------



## kinte (Feb 27, 2007)

I know Blake personally and I am an avid S/H grower, 95% of my potted plants are in the old S/H and I have not had any problems. Based on Blakes findings I was and still am very reluctant to use the new S/H on its own. I have been the recipiend of a lot of Blakes new S/H and have yet to start moving plants. I am waiting until it warms up a bit. I have moved a few but I have used a 50-50 mix of old S/H and new S/H. I am not seeing any problems so far. I plan to place a large order with a different company in the next month they have what seems to be primeAgra also. I had them send me samples and it seems to be the same so i plan to go that route.


----------



## Candace (Feb 27, 2007)

Hi Kinte,
Glad to see you. I thought about e-mailing you about this thread. I agree you're right about going slow with it and making sure you like it before taking the leap. Do, post your observations.


Hey, Blake I thought you said it went on your floor:>


----------



## kinte (Feb 27, 2007)

hey Candace, I joined around the same time you did but I suck at growing paphs and phrags, I cant get them to rebloom so i have shyed away from this forum. I got the email about the contest and logged back on and started looking around and this was the 1st post I came across so of course i had to read it


----------



## Heather (Feb 27, 2007)

Kinte - welcome back! 
Um...you should stick around - you might figure out how to grow them better. :wink:


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Feb 27, 2007)

gonewild said:


> I did some comparison tests between the New and Old PrimeAgra.
> 
> Here are my test results.....
> 
> ...



Coupla ??'s for you Lance:

Was the primeagra you used fresh out of the box at the start of the test or was it recycled?

Have you tried doing a cycling rinse: soak for a period of time, rinse, soak, rinse for x cycles?

Your fertilizer solution is 538 ppm. The new PA test above indicated 851 ppm for a net GAIN of 313 ppm. The old indicated 412 ppm for a net LOSS of 126. Your 8 month test indicates 448 ppm, again for a net LOSS of 90. Do you have a hypothosis for that?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

All very good questions, bear with me...

I'm not trying to prove any point about culture, we are here to discuss the possibility that the new PA is extremely different from the old PA.



Candace said:


> I use a TDS reader. I use many different types of fertilizers but it usually works out to 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. per gallon.


 
Does your tds meter read in ppm or another scale?
1/4 tsp per gallon of MSU(13-3-15+) yields 195 ppm.



> If you aren't using resevoirs this isn't s/h .


 
I am using reservoirs. I just don't rely on the wicking for the irrigation of the pot, but it certainly adds to it. 



> You are using regular pots with holes at the bottom?


 
No. My pots have 2 holes 1 inch up from the bottom.



> If so, this is watering frequently, but not a constant resevoir of water that the roots sit in(which Ray coined as s/H).


 
Once my seedlings roots grow they sit in the water in the reservoir. The photo below is a besseae hybrid planted directly in this pot 8 months ago and watered as I have described.









> Maybe I'm incorrectly remembering that you stated you grew in S/H.


 
Perhaps what I am doing is growing ss/h, simi-simi/hydroponics?



> If you're flushing with heavily fertilized water twice daily, I'd like to see what happens when you flush with R.O. water occasionally.


 
I'm not flushing with heavily fertilized water twice daily. I am watering lightly twice daily, not flushing. What I believe I said was that my frequent light waterings gives me a "constant" flush. I do not have salt build ups that need to be flushed.



> It doesn't suprise my your tds readings high since your water is so high in tds to start with.


 
Well again, my tds readings are not "high", they are at an optimum level for rapid plant growth. You can see in the photo above that the besseae hybrid has not suffered and I think grown quite well in 8 months from flask to an 8 inch LS. Is it growing well, maybe I am mistaken?



> Why do you feel you have to water with fertilizer upon every watering??


 
partly because of:
40+ years of growing experience with a focus on plant growth and nutrition.
Many, many tests by trial and error to determine what makes a plant grow faster, better, stronger and healthier. And a very keene sense of what a plant needs (I talk to them? :evil: ). 

I could keep going as to why I fertilize and water the way I do and I will if you want.  But the point of the thread is about the new PA. 

In addition to my own experience with plant growing we know that PrimeAgra has no cation exchange capacity so we know the plants only get nutrition from the irrigation water.

Let me ask you this... Why do you feel plants do not need a nutrient supply every day of the week?

But my growing practices aside the measurements show that the new PA either has or holds more accumilated salts than the old PA. Even if I were adding too many tds I am adding them equally to both the new and old PA.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

Candace said:


> Yes, I know Blake was happy with the old PA. But, it's smart that when switching over to any newer medium that you take it slowly and experiment with a few plants to see what happens. Not 50 at once.



In Blake's defense  he really did not change media. He used a new improved PrimeAgra, it is supposed to be the same as the old, only better.

If you have 50 plants to repot from organic media into s/h you really don't have time to test every batch of media. But on the other hand you are correct Candace.

Maybe Ray should have changed the name as the new material is so different from the old.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

kinte said:


> I know Blake personally and I am an avid S/H grower, 95% of my potted plants are in the old S/H and I have not had any problems. Based on Blakes findings I was and still am very reluctant to use the new S/H on its own. I have been the recipiend of a lot of Blakes new S/H and have yet to start moving plants. I am waiting until it warms up a bit. I have moved a few but I have used a 50-50 mix of old S/H and new S/H. I am not seeing any problems so far. I plan to place a large order with a different company in the next month they have what seems to be primeAgra also. I had them send me samples and it seems to be the same so i plan to go that route.



So far Blake is still the only person to report problems with the new PA. Surely there are other forum members who have tried it?

Please post a link to the different company. You are allowed to post links on SlipperTalk.


----------



## bwester (Feb 27, 2007)

Kinte, didnt you order from that other place??


----------



## Candace (Feb 27, 2007)

o.K. I'm clear on how you grow now Lance. Thanks for the photo and explaining in more detail your set-up. And it does in my mind fall into the s/h arena:> From what you described, to me it sounded like it wasn't. Shows you how e-mails and the written word lose some meaning. I would like clarification of your ferlizer regime maybe on a different thread? If I'm missing out and worrying about over fertilization, I'd like to hear more.

My tds meter died a few months ago and I just ordered another. So, it's very possible I've been going over 150 a bit. It's just the cheapo Hanna model but it does the trick.

I agree that the main thread of old versus new primeagra is the one at hand so will try to refrain my questions to that. 

Are you concerned about your new kovach. in the new stuff and will you be changing it? 

I'd like to hear about more people's experiences with it, but maybe it hasn't been out long enough for folks to form an opinion.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

IdahoOrchid said:


> Coupla ??'s for you Lance:
> 
> Was the primeagra you used fresh out of the box at the start of the test or was it recycled?



Fresh out of the box. Not recycled. But I did not plant any of the pots as a test, so I really did not start a "test". What I did was test pots on my growing shelves.



> Have you tried doing a cycling rinse: soak for a period of time, rinse, soak, rinse for x cycles?



No. Should not need to do that with a product designed and manufactured for horticulture. I soaked some of the material for over 30 days, that should have been enough.



> Your fertilizer solution is 538 ppm. The new PA test above indicated 851 ppm for a net GAIN of 313 ppm. The old indicated 412 ppm for a net LOSS of 126. Your 8 month test indicates 448 ppm, again for a net LOSS of 90. Do you have a hypothosis for that?



Yes I think I know why the loss occurred in these pots. The samples you cite have growing plants in them. The plants are consuming some of the ppm as nutrients. That is what is supposed to happen! :clap: 

With the old PA the consumed nutrients yield a loss in ppm.

But with the new PA I'm not sure why they salts are accumulating.
With the new PA there still is consumption, so the gain must be from either soluable salts manufactured into the newPA itself or the newPA is somehow absorbing and holding salts that slowly leach out. My guess is salts leaching out of the material itself.


----------



## kinte (Feb 27, 2007)

bwester said:


> Kinte, didnt you order from that other place??



not yet, waiting for my settlement check

http://cropking.com/ search for LECA


----------



## gonewild (Feb 27, 2007)

Candace said:


> Shows you how e-mails and the written word lose some meaning. I would like clarification of your ferlizer regime maybe on a different thread? If I'm missing out and worrying about over fertilization, I'd like to hear more.



I think you are worrying needlessly. You are not missing out because you are very happy with your plant growth. :clap: 
But just think how happy you will be if you learn how to improve on what you have!

Start another thread and ask questions and I'll answer. That is a great subject!



> My tds meter died a few months ago and I just ordered another. So, it's very possible I've been going over 150 a bit. It's just the cheapo Hanna model but it does the trick.



I'm using a cheap one also, my good one is in Peru. I have checked the cheap one I have and it is accurate. But beware not all testers read in the same scale. Maybe the one you had was not displaying ppm?



> I agree that the main thread of old versus new primeagra is the one at hand so will try to refrain my questions to that.



All your questions are really good and important to ask. But the answers always lead to other questions which get off topic really fast. If you think of a question that gets off topic by all means start a new thread.



> Are you concerned about your new kovach. in the new stuff and will you be changing it?



I am of course concerned. If I change them I (we) won't know what they can tolerate. I will monitor them very closely for a while and if I see any problems I'll change them. Kind of an expensive plant to experiment on but I want to learn. I don't think 500 or 600 ppm is going to hurt them as nobody really knows if they are salt sensitive like besseae. I am concerned about the "extra" salt crystals on the surface touching the soft tissue of the new seedlings. I may need to alter my watering and fertilizing practice for the new PA.



> I'd like to hear about more people's experiences with it, but maybe it hasn't been out long enough for folks to form an opinion.



It has been out long enough for people to see problems if there problems. I think maybe most people are timid about posting problems? *But what we really want to hear is reports from people who have used the new PA and are happy with it. Let's think positive.*


----------



## Heather (Feb 28, 2007)

I am not timid about posting, I'm timid about using! I won't buy the stuff until we know more. I'm stickin' with the old stuff.


----------



## ScottMcC (Feb 28, 2007)

So far, the majority of the plants I have in new primeagra are doing great. My Phrag Cape Sunset seedling is struggling, but it got a pretty bad fungal infection that I'm not sure can be attributed to the difference between new and old primeagra. interestingly enough, that one was purchased from Ray's store.

anyway, here's my thoughts about Lance's observation of increased salt content with the new vs old. I think it's occuring due to the increased evaporation rate with the new stuff. Much like the ocean becomes salty because the water can evaporate, leaving the salt behind, the primeagra becomes salty when the water evaporates. The reason this doesn't happen with the old primeagra is that the evaporation is slow enough that the plant can take up the salts quickly enough to compensate, but such is not the case for the new stuff.

anyway, it's just a thought, and I don't have evidence to back it up, but it seems to make sense to me.

by the way, I follow Ray's directions on his website pretty closely, but as a result of all the visible salt buildup I have been getting on the new primeagra I've started using fresh water flushes and 75 ppm N MSU fertilizer instead of 125 ppm N.


----------



## Inverness (Feb 28, 2007)

I have both the old and new. Have five compots of phrags potted into the new media (fine grade). All doing well, nice growth and roots. Several dozen miltonia seedlings also well. My one kovachii, the same. Assorted catts, phals, paphs, and other genera OK. I give the newly purchased media a light rinse, then use it. No soaking, no KLN.

Watering is every 5-7 days, MSU 125ppm almost every watering. All indoors under HID. I do water liberally, lots of runoff (floor drains). New PA seems to stay wetter, but that is what I was looking for. Been growing orchids more than 40 years. For me, PrimeAgra/SH has worked better than bark, bark mixes, coir. 
Ken B.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 28, 2007)

I got this little TDS meter. That I assume is reading in ppm. When I check my R.O. water it reads 2. When I check my trays w/ the MSU fertilizer that I'm only applying at 1/4 tsp per Gallon [ once a week and washing thru w/ R.O. daily] it reads 280-350. Doesn't that seem a little high for ppm then?!?


----------



## gonewild (Feb 28, 2007)

NYEric said:


> I got this little TDS meter. That I assume is reading in ppm. When I check my R.O. water it reads 2. When I check my trays w/ the MSU fertilizer that I'm only applying at 1/4 tsp per Gallon [ once a week and washing thru w/ R.O. daily] it reads 280-350. Doesn't that seem a little high for ppm then?!?



Look on your meter, it should say what scale it reads in.
I'm not an expert on RO units but "2" is really low I think. Most people have told me the units only take the water down to 10 -20 ppm.

The other major factor in measuring ppm is accuracy of the 1/4 tsp of fertilizer you add. the actual weight of the amount is what is important. If your fertilizer powder is coarse grained or fine grained could make a huge difference in the actual ppm. Take a reading on your fresh fertilizer solution and it should read around 190 ppm. 

How often you change your tray water will determine how high the ppm rises over time. The combination of RO water, fertilizer water and evaporation will greatly change your tray water's ppm.

280-350 ppm is not to high at all, in fact I would suggest it is low.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 28, 2007)

I'm only using a quater teaspoon per Gallon and I think the package says 1 [whole] teaspoon per Gallon. I want to keep it low because I grow hydro. Thanx for the info.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 28, 2007)

NYEric said:


> I'm only using a quater teaspoon per Gallon and I think the package says 1 [whole] teaspoon per Gallon. I want to keep it low because I grow hydro. Thanx for the info.



I know, you have said that before.  
I simply was saying your ppms are not to worry about.


----------



## Candace (Feb 28, 2007)

Lance, my R.O. unit's output is that low. I was told by Culligan that anything over that amount means it's not operating properly. Either the membrane needs replacing, the filters need changing or the amount of refuse water isn't enough and is backing up the system. I actually noted this when you mentioned yours measured around 18 and was going to say something, but forgot. 

I replace my filters etc. when I notice it going about 3 or 4, which usually works out to be about every 8 months or so. My membrane lasts for a couple of years.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 28, 2007)

Candace said:


> Lance, my R.O. unit's output is that low. I was told by Culligan that anything over that amount means it's not operating properly. Either the membrane needs replacing, the filters need changing or the amount of refuse water isn't enough and is backing up the system. I actually noted this when you mentioned yours measured around 18 and was going to say something, but forgot.
> 
> I replace my filters etc. when I notice it going about 3 or 4, which usually works out to be about every 8 months or so. My membrane lasts for a couple of years.



You are probably right. I did not pay too much attention to that part when I bought my RO unit from a family friend. He said something about going down close to 0 would cause more corrosion in the house plumbing and also require more frequent filter replacement. 18 ppm is plenty low enough.

How many gallons per day does your unit make?


----------



## Heather (Feb 28, 2007)

oh, oops! Yeah, I meant 150ppm nitrogen. Sorry! I knew something was off there.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 28, 2007)

Heather said:


> oh, oops! Yeah, I meant 150ppm nitrogen. Sorry! I knew something was off there.



Oops! I think you did the same thing I did and posted your responce to the wrong thread! I moved mine to the fertilizer thread where it was supposed to be. :sob: 

In any case. Honest error, but that tiny error is how growing rumors get spread. Without correction everyone would/may assume you maintain a total of 150 ppm and since you grow award winning plants they copy you.

I think this is why people don't fertilize their orchids enough


----------



## Candace (Feb 28, 2007)

> How many gallons per day does your unit make?



It's either a 50gpd or 75 gallon per day membrane. I think 50. I replaced it about 8 months ago.

Yeah, 18 is still low and I would just take it as a note to self to watch the membrane and filters.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 28, 2007)

Candace said:


> It's either a 50gpd or 75 gallon per day membrane. I think 50. I replaced it about 8 months ago.
> 
> Yeah, 18 is still low and I would just take it as a note to self to watch the membrane and filters.



Mine makes a little over 4 gallons per hour.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 28, 2007)

ScottMcC said:


> So far, the majority of the plants I have in new primeagra are doing great. My Phrag Cape Sunset seedling is struggling, but it got a pretty bad fungal infection that I'm not sure can be attributed to the difference between new and old primeagra. interestingly enough, that one was purchased from Ray's store.
> 
> anyway, here's my thoughts about Lance's observation of increased salt content with the new vs old. I think it's occuring due to the increased evaporation rate with the new stuff. Much like the ocean becomes salty because the water can evaporate, leaving the salt behind, the primeagra becomes salty when the water evaporates. The reason this doesn't happen with the old primeagra is that the evaporation is slow enough that the plant can take up the salts quickly enough to compensate, but such is not the case for the new stuff.
> 
> ...



You may be correct about the evaporation. I wonder what the ppm increase in my original soaking is from? It is not due to evaporation as I soak in a closed container. If indeed you must use less fertilizer to compensate then it becomes difficult to have both new PA and old PA pots on your bench.

I wonder which minerals in the fertilizer solution are crystallizing out of solution? If some minerals fall out of solution and some stay dissolved that would screw up the nutrient balance ratios over time. This would then require heavier and more frequent flushing of the pots.


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Feb 28, 2007)

My Culligan RO system makes 33 gallons a day and the initial TDS reading was at or below that of Candace's. I believe the highest capacity (at least for the model we bought) is 50 gallons a day.

I would expect a higher finished TDS for a unit that is capable of nearly 100 gallons a day. Compromises must be made somewhere to get that capacity.


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Mar 2, 2007)

kinte said:


> not yet, waiting for my settlement check
> 
> http://cropking.com/ search for LECA



The site says that this stuff is from Germany. What common name LECA comes from there?


----------



## Ray (Mar 3, 2007)

Wow! I should add Slippertalk to my regular reading routine!

There are SO many different subjects in the thread, it's hard to address them all.

The new PrimeAgra wicks better than the old primarily due to the more regular surface, which creates better contact area.

The more uniform size and shape results in more air flow, so that does, indeed, result in greater evaporation. I do not water daily (especially this time of year), but my greenhouse humidity is very good, so the surface of the medium in my pots is likely to stay more moist, keeping the nutrients in solution where they can be absorbed by the plants, and making the mineral content less saturated.

The new PrimeAgra does NOT have more of a wet film at the surface than the old stuff. It's actually probably less the case, as the old stuff had some highly densified areas at the surface that could get wet and yet not absorb the water. The new stuff absorbs and releases much more thoroughly.

That difference in absorption/release properties may be contributing to the observed surface mineral buildup, as by contrast, more minerals were "trapped" in the old stuff, which I guess could lead to chemistry issues over time (a la Dr. Wang's comments on diatomite in Orchids magazine). The improved wicking can also contribute, as was noted in the thread. The initial free mineral content from the manufacturing process is also probably higher in the new material because of the improved absorption, but probably releases better. I still rinse the crap out of it before use - and always have.

I have mixed the old and the new, with no issues.

I've been using the new PrimeAgra for a couple of years now - repotting everything last August - and have not noticed a mortality rate any different than with the old. I believe I have, on the other hand noticed better growth and blooming, presumably due to better - and more stable - water and nutrient availability. That, of course, could just be "wishful thinking" (OK, wishful observation), but my wife has also commented on it, and she doesn't grow plants.

Some responses to sub-threads:

RO water SHOULD, if your system is working right, give you at-most single-digit dissolved solids. The capacity of the system is irrelevant, as the components are different to accommodate that.

TDS meters are notoriously inaccurate, as they are really just electrical conductivity (EC) meters that have a built-in conversion factor that displays the output in parts per million (ppm) of total dissolved solids (TDS). The trouble is that the relationship between the conductivity of a solution and its content varies not only by the concentration of the dissolved ions, but is also based upon the charge and mobility of the dissolved ionic species. That means that in our case, the "standard" conversion factor cannot be standard at all, and actually should be different for every fertilizer and water supply. I have an article about that on my "Free Info" page, if anyone's interested.

Calculating the TDS of the MSU fertilizer in RO, at 150 ppm N, your meter should see something in the neighborhood of 425 ppm TDS. My two meters gave me about 600 and 750.

There's a LOT more to good culture than just the medium used, and one must observe and adjust accordingly as something changes. Even under the worst conditions, I have never heard of anyone killing an otherwise healthy plant in a week. I'd almost bet that submerging a pot in water for a week wouldn't have that quick of a kill.

I always respond to emails I get, assuming they have a subject line that is intelligible and pertinent, or from someone I know. Blake posted some pretty nasty commentary both at Orchidboard and Slippertalk, and I honestly do not recall getting any emails from him on the subject. Ignoring things like that is simply not my way. I'm truly sorry that the communication disconnect happened (and no doubt soured him on my apparent attitude), as I would have liked to investigate the situation with him, both to try to fix the problem and and to potentially learn more myself!

As was stated, so far Blake has been the only one that has expressed problems with the new material, but do keep in mind that folks can express discontent not only with their mouths, but with their feet (or wallets) as well, and just not buy the stuff. Based upon the rate at which it is moving out of my warehouse and the emails I get on the subject, there does not appear to be a widespread problem.


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Mar 3, 2007)

Thank you Ray. Much appreciated. I guess in all fairness ( and because there is a ton of info there too! ) I should post a link to the thread over on orchid board too:

http://www.orchidboard.com/communit...ture/2244-new-primeagra-question-problem.html


----------



## Candace (Mar 3, 2007)

Ray, thanks for your input. Some people really want the "old" primeagra back. Is it even possible to get it anymore? Would you consider bringing back the old primeagra again? Something to consider...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 3, 2007)

Ray, glad you are here, we need your input about your product.



Ray said:


> Wow! I should add Slippertalk to my regular reading routine!



Yes you should. oke: 



> The new PrimeAgra wicks better than the old primarily due to the more regular surface, which creates better contact area.



Is more really better?



> The new PrimeAgra does NOT have more of a wet film at the surface than the old stuff. It's actually probably less the case, as the old stuff had some highly densified areas at the surface that could get wet and yet not absorb the water. The new stuff absorbs and releases much more thoroughly.



I don't know what is happening to the surface of each pebble inside the pot but the surface of the new PA does in fact have a wet film of water where the old does not. It is visible in side by side pots. I'm not saying that is a problem but I can see it.



> That difference in absorption/release properties may be contributing to the observed surface mineral buildup, as by contrast, more minerals were "trapped" in the old stuff, which I guess could lead to chemistry issues over time (a la Dr. Wang's comments on diatomite in Orchids magazine).



If as you guess the old PA after a period of time will have "chemistry issues" that would indicate that at some time in the future there would be problems?

It seems that the new PA may have the same "chemisty issues" but they show up much sooner?

Please elaborate on this.



> The initial free mineral content from the manufacturing process is also probably higher in the new material because of the improved absorption, but probably releases better. I still rinse the crap out of it before use - and always have.



What is the "free mineral content"? Do you have an analysis?

I thought PrimeAgra was an inert ceramic like material. I'm surprised a product manufactured for horticulture would need to we rinsed at all before use.



> RO water SHOULD, if your system is working right, give you at-most single-digit dissolved solids. The capacity of the system is irrelevant, as the components are different to accommodate that.



Unless the system is designed to remove slightly less mineral content to reduce the volume of waste water which also increases the total daily output.



> Calculating the TDS of the MSU fertilizer in RO, at 150 ppm N, your meter should see something in the neighborhood of 425 ppm TDS. My two meters gave me about 600 and 750.



I'm curious what your two meters read with a standard NaCl solution?
How do you measure the MSU fertilizer to get the 150 ppm solution?



> There's a LOT more to good culture than just the medium used, and one must observe and adjust accordingly as something changes. Even under the worst conditions, I have never heard of anyone killing an otherwise healthy plant in a week. I'd almost bet that submerging a pot in water for a week wouldn't have that quick of a kill.



I agree with you about this. But if we assume what Blake says is true, something killed his plants quickly when he used the new PA. Perhaps there is a problem with the "free mineral content" that you mentioned needs to be rinsed out?



> I always respond to emails I get, assuming they have a subject line that is intelligible and pertinent, or from someone I know. Blake posted some pretty nasty commentary both at Orchidboard and Slippertalk, and I honestly do not recall getting any emails from him on the subject. Ignoring things like that is simply not my way. I'm truly sorry that the communication disconnect happened (and no doubt soured him on my apparent attitude), as I would have liked to investigate the situation with him, both to try to fix the problem and and to potentially learn more myself!



That's what we are here for. No censorship on this forum. (spam filters are censorship after all  ) 

Blake made his problems known and because I think the old PA is a perfect growing media I started this thread to try to learn about the new PA.
Thanks for joining in.

In your defense Ray I remember having communication problems during that time period with you also, but I doubt you were at fault as I was trying to buy something from you.



> As was stated, so far Blake has been the only one that has expressed problems with the new material, but do keep in mind that folks can express discontent not only with their mouths, but with their feet (or wallets) as well, and just not buy the stuff. Based upon the rate at which it is moving out of my warehouse and the emails I get on the subject, there does not appear to be a widespread problem.



You can't use sales volume as a product qualification. Just because a lot of people start buying a product does not mean it is good, it only means that it has gotten good advertising. Look at Viox, how about all the diet pills that fly out of a warehouse also.

So what do you suppose killed all of Blake's plants that were planted into the new PrimeAgra?


----------



## bwester (Mar 3, 2007)

Ray, you sell alot of this stuff because you have regular customers that are offered no other option. And in all honesty I dont believe any "scientific" results coming from the salesman's mouth. I know you are a highly intelligent and educated person, but you are a salesman and no salesman would say anything bad about their own product.


----------



## Ray (Mar 3, 2007)

I'm sorry you have such a narrow view, Blake.

Please understand that this is not a significant source of income for me, as I have a "real job" that supports my family, and the home-based business is based entirely upon me buying stuff I want in wholesale quantities and reselling the excess to others that care to participate.

If First Rays was to evaporate tomorrow, I would do and say nothing different.


----------



## Ray (Mar 4, 2007)

Candace, the old stuff is no longer manufactured.

Lance, let me see if I can wade through your series of questions/comments:

I believe more wicking is better, as it provides a more uniform environment throughout the pot.

The appearance of droplets between medium particles and the pot wall does not necessarily indicate the presence of a surface film on the medium. Those "wet spots" are simply places where surface tension is holding water droplets, which happens between particles, and between particles and the pot wall with all types of media.

Long-term "chemistry issues" arise when the medium absorbs, but does not re-release chemicals freely. My guess is that there is nothing that has a truly 100% in-and-out set of properties. If anything, the new PrimeAgra is better at releasing the absorbed solution, so should go longer before issues may appear, if at all. The maintenance of a constant moisture supply keeps the ions in solution, hence more mobile, so the buildup is lessened. it's when media are allowed to dry between waterings that the problem really comes to a fore. (I have a paph still in the same pot of "old" material since 2000, and I see no issues.)

PrimeAgra is a 100% ceramic product, and by itself is inert. I don't know for sure, but I can think of a couple of potential sources of the "free" material in the virgin product:
When the pellets are done with their firing cycle, they are quenched to rapidly cool them and to keep down dust. It is doubtful they use pure water to do so.
When manufacturing any clay body, binders are used to shape and hold the particles together before firing. Those binders can be pretty complex formulations of organic- and inorganic compounds. If properly fired (time, temperature, atmosphere), the organics are decomposed and the inorganics should oxidize, but the process may not be complete throughout each and every particle and even within a particle, so there might be some extractable residues.
For what it's worth, I have not observed any issues related to that, other than appearance, although I'll acknowledge that it did concern me at first.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking about the fertilizer concentration. Bill Argo, the inventor of the "MSU" formula, recommended 100-150 ppm N; I shoot for the middle of the range. The fertilizer bag label gives the EC contribution of the fertilizer at various concentrations. By comparing my TDS meter readings for a known conductivity standard to that of a known fertilizer solution (hence a known N concentration), I developed a calibration curve. At that point I can use the TDS meters to manage the concentration, but shoot for the "corrected" values, not the true values.

I had forgotten about the rash of PC problems! I lost a bunch of emails then, among other stuff. If that's when Blake tried contacting me, it's no wonder I appear to have ignored him! In his shoes, I'd have been pissed too.

I agree that sales do not directly correlate to value, but repeat sales usually _are_.

Without knowing all of the details, I would not venture a guess as to why Blake's plants died. It is just hard for me to imagine that simply switching the medium would have such an impact, as I have not seen any such problems, nor heard of them from anyone else using the stuff. I have planted tropicals and herbs in the stuff straight from the bag with no soaking or rinsing, and they have shown no problems. In non-s/h mode, I have done the same with catts and encyclias - again, with no issues - so it seems doubtful that there is a "toxicity" issue there. Last August I repotted almost 1000 plants into the new stuff, some from organic media, some from old PrimeAgra, and some from other experiments, and I have not had a lick of trouble.


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Mar 4, 2007)

I am sorry if this has been addressed somewhere before, but I cannot find it this morning. Has anyone done a pure water study and then evaluated the residue that accumulated at the surface? Maybe the residue is totally inert and other than appearance of no consequence to the plants?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 4, 2007)

Candace said:


> Lance, my R.O. unit's output is that low. I was told by Culligan that anything over that amount means it's not operating properly. Either the membrane needs replacing, the filters need changing or the amount of refuse water isn't enough and is backing up the system. I actually noted this when you mentioned yours measured around 18 and was going to say something, but forgot.
> 
> I replace my filters etc. when I notice it going about 3 or 4, which usually works out to be about every 8 months or so. My membrane lasts for a couple of years.



Concerning the ppm output of RO units......

It seems final out put can depend on the content of the source water.

I found this piece of information:

"If you are using a TDS or conductivity meter to monitor the performance of an RO membrane, then the measured value should drop by at least a factor of 10 from the starting tap water. So, for example, if the tap water reads 231 ppm, then the RO water should be less than 23 ppm. In many cases, it will drop much more than that. Less of a drop than a factor of 10 indicates a problem with the RO membrane."


----------



## Ray (Mar 5, 2007)

Anyone have any experience with the forced-water type of RO? They use a pump to push the water through the membrane, resulting in zero waste water.


----------



## IdahoOrchid (Mar 5, 2007)

Ray said:


> Anyone have any experience with the forced-water type of RO? They use a pump to push the water through the membrane, resulting in zero waste water.


Zero or Near Zero waste? I would think some water would have to be used to flush away the waste products at some point or the membrane would become clogged quite quickly.


----------



## Candace (Mar 5, 2007)

When was the last time you changed your filters or membrane, Lance?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 5, 2007)

Candace said:


> When was the last time you changed your filters or membrane, Lance?



July last year the system was put in new. It still basically gives the same ppm as when installed. I won't change the filters until they start climbing to 30 ppm or so.


----------



## Candace (Mar 5, 2007)

Yeah, that's not too long ago. But, you probably use a lot more water than I do/many more plants. My filters may last longer simply due to lower useage.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2007)

Some new thoughts and observations......

I have been monitoring the ppm of the pot reservoir water daily for a while.
The new PrimeAgra consistently has a higher ppm than the old even though both old and new get the exact same water and fertilizer applications.

Even when no fertilizer is applied the ppm levels increase between flushing the pots. This would seem to indicate the media is releasing salts into solution? Perhaps PrimeAgra is not actually inert and does slowly dissolve?

A reading I took today on the little kovachii pots:

old PA = 225 ppm
new PA = 353 ppm

Fertilizer has been applied daily at 250 ppm (total).

I suspect that PrimeAgra may actually have a cation exchange capacity (CEC) and is not inert in that respect. The new PA may have a much higher CEC and thus it is accumulating and holding minerals which are later leached out at higher levels than the old PA.


----------



## charlie c (Mar 11, 2007)

gonewild said:


> Some new thoughts and observations......
> 
> 
> A reading I took today on the little kovachii pots:
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2007)

charlie c said:


> Lance,
> 
> Just out of curiuosty, and it may be too soon to tell, but are you seeing any difference in the growth of the seedlings in the old Pa vs new Pa?
> 
> charlie c



It is too early to tell. But I have seen some problems with the new PA on some seedlings. I definitely like the old PA better. The new PA is a completely different media.

I won't say the problems are caused by the new PA but they are a result of it being different from the old PA. The new PA is going to need a lot more flushing than the old PA to keep the salts from becoming toxic. 

It is not working well with the methods I use to water and fertilize my seedlings because it accumulates salts so much faster than the old.

As you can see from the numbers I posted the old PA maintains the ppm of the fertilizer solution or slightly less while the new PA ppm level is climbing.
If the new PA is going to accumulate salts and or hold nutrients by CEC it makes it difficult to use hydroponic nutrient practices.

This is like New Coca Cola and the old Coke Classic. New Coke might taste great if you had never tasted the old Coke.


----------



## NYEric (Mar 11, 2007)

gonewild said:


> This is like New Coca Cola and the old Coke Classic. New Coke might taste great if you had never tasted the old Coke.


LOL! :rollhappy: I say grow semi-organic and dont sweat the details.


----------



## gonewild (Mar 11, 2007)

NYEric said:


> LOL! :rollhappy: I say grow semi-organic and dont sweat the details.




Or we all change to aeroponics and forget about media problems.

But sweating the details is the fun part. :evil:


----------



## cnycharles (Jan 16, 2021)

Bump

I know this is very old post! I was looking around trying to find best Leca and a link came here. After reading through everything, I notice that bwester soaked his new prime Agra in kln. Since it looked like this media absorbed and released more than an inert media, I think the new media dumped kln into the liquid along with strong fertilizer and this was the quick cause of plant death. Maybe I read that kln detail wrong but it’s what I think happened


----------



## Ray (Jan 16, 2021)

I doubt that was the issue. More likely just bad timing for repotting.

Check the Semi-Hydro section of my website. A few months ago I tested several currently-available brands plus a few Japanese bonsai “soils”.

All of the LECA samples performed similarly.


----------

