# K-lite effects on other orchids and others



## dodidoki (Jun 8, 2013)

I have no K-lite original fertilizer. I can only use my mix followed the original prescription of K-lite. I use it with RO or pure rain water controlled TDS, between 6-25 ppm, depending on raining period. I set fertilizing water to 100 ppm and use it every waterings, in summer one/4 days, in winter one/week.

I promised you taking pics about effect of K-lite on other generas. Here are few examples:



Cattleya aurea



Cattleya trianaei alba



Cattleya trianaei semialba



Corybas pictus



Dracula cordobae flower stem( it has three ones to other directions)



Coryanthes alborosea



moss on sanderianum



algees on another coryanthes (unpleasant, but harmless)

And paphs:



micranthum eburneum in sheath



same plant with roots ( and has two stolones)



and zieckianum in bud.


----------



## NYEric (Jun 8, 2013)

Corybas!:drool:


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 8, 2013)

Looking good!


----------



## Justin (Jun 8, 2013)

nice healthy plants!


----------



## Trithor (Jun 9, 2013)

It seems to be working well for you


----------



## Secundino (Jun 9, 2013)

Great plants! That will give lots of flowers!
But, to be honest, I could show you nearly the same pictures with my plants, it is the time of the year they are thriving. Fine roots, new pseudobulbs and shiny new leaves. I do not bother a lot about feeding, don't have a TDS-meter and the water quality I have to use as soon as rain water runs out is quite bad (high Na).
If it works well for you, don't fix it!


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 9, 2013)

Those cattleya photos are showing the beneficial effect of a "k-lite" like formulation? My cattleya of those species look better and more vigorous than those and I am not using a "k-lite" like formulation.


----------



## dodidoki (Jun 9, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Those cattleya photos are showing the beneficial effect of a "k-lite" like formulation? My cattleya of those species look better and more vigorous than those and I am not using a "k-lite" like formulation.



David, God knows, I have no controll-group, I just can say that my catts are growing very fine and faster than ever before and they get K-lite food. Eg. my aurea bloomed three years ago and never after, it got a pseudomonas infection cc. 18 months ago. Almost died, I started to use bleach added to water, symptoms disappeared and plant could produce a new, but smaller growth. I started to use K-lite about 7 months ago, at that time this plant just started to produce this new growth. Now you can see that it is in sheath and growth is very tall, about 50 cm. I think that maybe a catt can grow faster with normal fertilizer, but I think K-lite has a special advantage : bacterial organisms hate this, there is no rot at all, you can keep your plants in more humid conditions without danger of rot. And these advantages mean much more than increased K.

Maybe pics can not tell everything: eg. my trianaei alba has three new growths and all of them in sheath.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 9, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> My cattleya of those species look better and more vigorous than those and I am not using a "k-lite" like formulation.



Please show pictures to prove what you have claimed.
Specifically that show your growth has improved since using your current fertilizer.

dodidoki is not claiming to have the best growing plants that are better than anyone else's. Clearly the observation is that since switching to k-lite there has been a dramatic improvement from previous growth using a more common fertilizer formula.

dodidoki thanks for the report based on your observations and opinion.


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 9, 2013)

Dodidoki, if it works for you keep doing it. Plant growing, like medicine, is art and science. The later is important but because there are so many variables, use science as a guide. 
You're doing well. Continue. Watch carefully. Adjust accordingly.


----------



## Rick (Jun 9, 2013)

NYEric said:


> Corybas!:drool:



That's what I'm saying:drool:


----------



## Rick (Jun 9, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> Those cattleya photos are showing the beneficial effect of a "k-lite" like formulation? My cattleya of those species look better and more vigorous than those and I am not using a "k-lite" like formulation.



I've also had Catts come "charging out of the box" for the first few years on MSU, but then start shrinking and dieing, or just lingering after a few years. I also know lots of folks maintaining Catts on standard high K mixes, and if they don't religiously repot and use pesticides they have problems. I also know someone who ran a Cattleya corsage business in the 60's/70's and never supplemented (and still doesn't) her Catts at all. One of her 5 GH's is dedicated to these old bloomers, and some of the plants have busted out of the pots and grown into the benches.

In the wild these guys turn into huge colonies on starvation rations (compared to what we feed). I don't see any evidence that feeding at high rates of NPK is either necessary or advantageous.


----------



## Ray (Jun 17, 2013)

I got to thinking about Rick's assessment that K might "block" uptake of stuff like calcium and magnesium, but turned it around to "what physical processes would lead to preferred uptake of the K ions, even if they are not necessarily beneficial?" About that same time, someone asked me about the killing action of Oleotrol-M, which comes down to energy balance.

So I got to thinking about energy states and solubility - specifically, enthalpy of hydration. Enthalpy of Hydration is the energy released upon the dissolution of an ion into an aqueous solution of theoretically infinite dilution.

In order for a plant to capture that ion and remove it from solution, it seems logical that there must be a proportional release of energy back into the solution to compensate. If that's true, then it would make sense that those ions with a lower hydration energy release would require less to remove from solution, so would be taken up more readily, whether needed or not.

A little digging turned up the following enthalpies of solution:

K+ -322 kJ/mol
Mg++ -1921
Ca++ -1577

So basically, the potassium, requiring 15-20% of the energy transfer of calcium or magnesium, should be the "low hanging fruit".


----------



## tomkalina (Jun 17, 2013)

Not sure about other genera, but we just got finished with spring repotting, and the Paphs and Phrags that are being fed K-Lite are putting on a tremendous amount of root growth compared to the ones that are still being fed either MSU or Peter's 30-10-10. Both groups are rooting at this time of year, of course, but the K-Lite plants are way ahead. Based on this, we are putting everything on a dilute K-Lite watering schedule, with EC at 100-115 micro-siemens, giving an equivalent of approx. 15 ppm N. I think we owe a lot of credit to Rick and Ray for developing this idea; it's certainly made difference in our growing.


----------



## Rick (Jun 17, 2013)

Ray said:


> I got to thinking about Rick's assessment that K might "block" uptake of stuff like calcium and magnesium, but turned it around to "what physical processes would lead to preferred uptake of the K ions, even if they are not necessarily beneficial?" About that same time, someone asked me about the killing action of Oleotrol-M, which comes down to energy balance.
> 
> So I got to thinking about energy states and solubility - specifically, enthalpy of hydration. Enthalpy of Hydration is the energy released upon the dissolution of an ion into an aqueous solution of theoretically infinite dilution.
> 
> ...



That's kind of a different way of looking at this mechanism.


----------



## eteson (Jun 17, 2013)

Ray said:


> I got to thinking about Rick's assessment that K might "block" uptake of stuff like calcium and magnesium, but turned it around to "what physical processes would lead to preferred uptake of the K ions, even if they are not necessarily beneficial?" About that same time, someone asked me about the killing action of Oleotrol-M, which comes down to energy balance.
> 
> So I got to thinking about energy states and solubility - specifically, enthalpy of hydration. Enthalpy of Hydration is the energy released upon the dissolution of an ion into an aqueous solution of theoretically infinite dilution.
> 
> ...



Nice explanation! Thanks Ray

I started using K-lite a few weeks ago. The results in de-flasked plants are really promising... The Phalaenopsis seedling in constantly wet sphagnum does not rot and grow really quick...


----------



## Stone (Jun 17, 2013)

Ray said:


> I got to thinking about Rick's assessment that K might "block" uptake of stuff like calcium and magnesium, but turned it around to "what physical processes would lead to preferred uptake of the K ions, even if they are not necessarily beneficial?" About that same time, someone asked me about the killing action of Oleotrol-M, which comes down to energy balance.
> 
> So I got to thinking about energy states and solubility - specifically, enthalpy of hydration. Enthalpy of Hydration is the energy released upon the dissolution of an ion into an aqueous solution of theoretically infinite dilution.
> 
> ...



Don't you mean it should be the high hanging fruit?

But at the risk of starting the ''low K merry-go round'' again:sob:, Even if thats the case, we still have to supply K according to a particular plants' needs. For eg. It is well known that most agricultural crops have optimum K levels at the same or higher levels than thier N requirement. You wouldn't restrict K to a tomato or a rose if you wanted optimum harvest regardless of the energy required to assimilate the K.
Yes but orchids are different you say. Maybe, but there are many ''greenhouse'' plants which grow side by side with orchids like ferns, aroids, etc etc which come from the same areas, grow in the same substrate and have evolved with exactly the same availability of nutrients and do very well with standard greenhouse fertilizer formulations so why would the orchids ''suffer'' on the same regimen? Even though many growers using Klite are saying they are seeing ''great impovements'' I still remain to be convinced. Still waiting to see ''proof'' that accumulation of moderate amounts of luxury K restricts Ca and Mg uptake and is restricts growth. Thats why a strict side by side trial needs to undertaken (at least for me).
Rick is quick to point out his successes but he is using it on everything and has nothing to compare with as have all the others. So far the results _seem_ promising but remember that humans tend to see what they want to see.I know I sometimes do Someone show me a group of seedlings grown with Klite (and not given kelp or anything else) for a year or two next to a control group. If they are better plants then I'm in!


----------



## terryros (Jun 17, 2013)

It sure sounds like Tom Kalina has a side by side comparison going that he commented on just earlier with results that seem real to him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 17, 2013)

Interesting point Ray.
Thanks for the observations Tom.
We all watch and wait with interest.


----------



## Stone (Jun 17, 2013)

terryros said:


> It sure sounds like Tom Kalina has a side by side comparison going that he commented on just earlier with results that seem real to him.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I didn't see that. Sounds very interesting. I've got some Klite now too so come spring I'll hopefully see the same!
Tom, any chance of getting some pictures up?


----------



## Ray (Jun 18, 2013)

Mike, I agree with you.

I think what we're seeing is a tremendous mish-mash of combined effects/outcomes.

A single plant will have a specific set of nutritional needs, that will be different from another, different plant. (I imagine there are differences within a single population too, but this is complex enough for me.)

Given a particular nutrient supply, the relative concentrations of ions, their ionic sizes and their energy states will all play a role in the uptake rate. Add to that the "pumps" that to some extent override those other factors.

So then we try to analyze what has been absorbed, not really knowing for certain how those factors above have affected them...


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 22, 2013)

Stone said:


> I didn't see that. Sounds very interesting. I've got some Klite now too so come spring I'll hopefully see the same!
> Tom, any chance of getting some pictures up?



Mike, did you get it from Ray? Postage?


----------



## Stone (Jun 23, 2013)

Ozpaph said:


> Mike, did you get it from Ray? Postage?



Yep. Just go to the site and follow the prompts. I think it was about $35 or 37or something like that all up for a 2 pound bag. But I don't pay much attention to these details. I paid with P/Pal.


----------

