# K-Lite has been around a few years now... updates?



## ChrisFL (May 21, 2015)

Hi all, 

So, how many of you have been using K-Lite/Solo-E since it's been out? Can we get any updates on whether things are still going well? Slippers and non slipper reports welcomed and encouraged. 

Pics are important, too!


----------



## Marco (May 21, 2015)

Chris there's a bunch of threads that detail this stuff out. I was looking through them not to long ago. K-lite seems to be legit as far as paphs go. I will be using k-lite on my phals when I get the package from Ray.


----------



## Chicago Chad (May 21, 2015)

Chris if you want my feedback please message me.


----------



## Ozpaph (May 21, 2015)

so far so good - but hardly a scientific experiment


----------



## abax (May 21, 2015)

Chris, I've been using K-Lite exclusively for well over a
year on Paphs., Phrags. and species Phals. and I'm very
pleased with the results. I'm not a chemist, so my results
in my greenhouse conditions are beyond my capability to
explain in specific terms, but the benefits are apparent to
me.


----------



## Ray (May 22, 2015)

Chicago Chad said:


> Chris if you want my feedback please message me.


You afraid to post it publicly?


----------



## Chicago Chad (May 22, 2015)

No its not that Ray. I just don't want criticism to be misinterpreted. I am not a scientist and too often I see feedback that takes that course. I cannot argue some of the scientific battles because I do not have the educational background. From what I observed (as a hobbyist) it has caused me to no longer use it. I have tried to make it work for my growing conditions and my preference of species and I have found it to be less effective than other options. I used it for 18 months so I believe I gave it a fair shot. 

If people are interested in the specific problems I encountered, I am happy to discuss them from an observational-reactionary position.


----------



## Marco (May 22, 2015)

Chad - hobbyist here as well. I would be interested in hearing/reading your experience with k-lite. Medium used. Plants used on. Do you grow in a windowsill east facing window greenhouse. And your results over the 18 months you used it. I will be using k-lite very soon. I would like to know your experience to see if I need to adjust my culture in anyway. 

Thanks.


----------



## Ray (May 22, 2015)

Honestly Chad, I'd be happy to hear your observations! If not in public, by email.

I think some of the "scientific battles" waged here are largely theoretical only, while in practical reality of culture we practice, we are unlikely to see the plant responses espoused in them.


----------



## Chicago Chad (May 22, 2015)

ok here it goes (I neglected my job for the past hour:drool

my plant collection:
for paphs-
mostly species
of those, mostly parvis and some brachys
of those, mostly albums
other paph species I grow: violascens, sangii, wardii album, venustum album, stonei, ect

Phrags: longifolium album (multiple), andreatte

aside from paphs, I only grow miniature to micro miniature species. mostly Pleurothallids, Oxyglossum section Dendrobiums, and SE Asian Bulbophyllum types. 

My growing conditions:
strictly enclosures with consistent temperature ranges. 
summer highs near 82F for paphs, lower for miniature species
winter lows of 50F, and on occasion slightly lower for some parvis

air movement is constant (24hrs a day)
light is from T5 bulbs and Ray's LEDs 

humidity shifts throughout the day but it may range between 60-90%

Prior fertilizer used was MSU clean water with seaweed applications during the spring and fall. 

Fertilizer applications were in varying concentrations but always under a tsp per gln. Both with KLite, MSU and my current regiments. 

potting medium was comprised of Orchiata (sml and med), perlite, grow stone, large sponge rock, shredded sphagnum and limestone.
-certain species also have Diatomite mixed in (hangianum, emersonii, stonei for example)

My potting media has now changed as well. I have replaced the sphagnum with shredded coconut coir. The reason for this was consistent moisture levels instead of pockets of wet moss.

plant reactions during Klite use:
-root growth in all plants was encouraging and productive
-leaf growth was discouraging and slow
-bud blast was more evident and prior, not an issue
-multifloral species produced rot easily
-I rotted out a gigantifolium during this time. I have never rotted a paph in the 7-8 years I have grown them until this point. An armeniacum album also rotted. I had never killed a parvisepalum paph until this occurrence.
-leaf growth was weak by comparison, leaves would flop or worse, not grow very quickly and when stagnant in growth, they would develop infections near the base where the leaves touched. This was most evident, if not a constant variable that occurred in every paph species outside of the parvi-Brachy group
-parvi section paphs responded without major incident or noticable negative effect, same for Brachys. Although results were not negative, they were not encouraging either.
-Chlorosis, and leaf pigment in MF species was pale and inconsistent. Some leaves have even turned white, absent of any pigment. Leaf mottling in parvis section plants was bland by comparison. Many plants such as micranthums, showed less contrast and less shine. 

Since stopping Klite I have leaf mottling that I would consider to be more appropriate. I have leaves in plants that are growing aggressively. I now have plants putting out 2-3 new leads on unbloomed growths. I also have buds or blooms on very small plants (my preference)
for example I have blooms on the following plants with a 8 cm LS and only 3 leaves- niveum, fowlei album and micranthum var. eburneum. 


My experience is that I would not recommend using it for species outside of Parvi and Brachy. I would imagine I could have elaborated further, but perhaps this sums up my experience in a way that others may find useful.


----------



## daniella3d (May 22, 2015)

I would like to buy some, but can't find any in Canada. Is there something similar in Canada?

It's too expensive to have it shipped from the USA.


----------



## Ray (May 22, 2015)

Chad - based upon your description and my own experience, I suspect that the fertilizer formula was not really the primary - or maybe sole - source of the issues.

I am not big on parvi's or brachy's, yet all of my paphs are doing great. In fact, I have not sen an issue with any plant. Less-than-distinct mottling and dull-appearing leaves strikes me as a water-quality issue, but it may have been due to a combination of the content of the alkaline earth minerals and the concentration applied, when used with your water supply.

I have never applied K-Lite above 1/4 tsp/gal - usually about half that.


----------



## naoki (May 22, 2015)

Interesting, Chad (and very nice info to characterize your culture). Thank you for sharing your experience (that's the value of this forum where people can freely share their experience)! It would be rather surprising that one type of fertilizer can make a big difference in all different types of cultural conditions.

What was the frequency of fertilization? And what are you currently using? Also, were you putting the powder directly into the working solution? Or did you use concentrated stock solution?

I personally don't see good or bad. I switched back and forth only a couple time. My bias is that I generally don't get convinced without a controlled experiment or other strong quantitative data, though. However, I'm thinking low K is good enough (and it could have a hypothetical benefit of reducing TDS as Mike Stone mentioned).


----------



## tomkalina (May 22, 2015)

To be honest, we have reduced our use of K-Lite as our primary fertilizer, because 30-10-10 and 10-52-10 (both urea based) are producing better results for us in terms of leaf size and leaf color (green rather than yellow-green) - especially in Phrags. That is not to say K-Lite doesn't work well, it just doesn't seem to work as well in our growing environment as the others.


----------



## Chicago Chad (May 22, 2015)

In regards to your comment Ray I should have stated that I always and only use distilled water on all my plants so I am starting at 0 TDS. That is why I felt I could alternate with a varying level of fertilizer that could reach up to 1 tsp. That is still far lower on TDS than most people's water. I generally apply 1/4 tsp. I fertilizer every watering because of the distilled water. 

Naoki I am currently using a urea based fertilizer as Tom is. I am also alternating formulas monthly between this and MSU. This goes against what many orchid growers tell me to do. I believe their rational was that urea doesn't absorb well. I could be mistaken so don't hold me to it.


----------



## gonewild (May 22, 2015)

Chicago Chad said:


> I would imagine I could have elaborated further, but perhaps this sums up my experience in a way that others may find useful.



You mentioned that your potting media has now changed. When you stopped using K-lite did you also repot your plants into the new media?


----------



## Marco (May 22, 2015)

Chad - I really appreciate you getting into the detail that you did. It is insightful. Seems like results are somewhat of a mixed bag between your experience and others on the forum. I don't have any paphs at the moment but I will use k lite on some of my phals. Will lay off the neos and stay with the 20-20-20 for now I will cry if I loose any of them.


----------



## Chicago Chad (May 22, 2015)

Marco I would say issues that I had were really with paphs that were not parvis or brachys. There are a number of reasons that I may not grow those types well. I found that with whatever level of culture I have, that klite compounded the problems that i have with those types.

Perhaps that is the most honest response I can have. 
It's not that I fail with sangii, hookerae, wardii, venustum, anitum hybrids, ect ect but when I began using klite, through a series of seasons, those plants, both new and old purchases, grew with less vigor, presented more issues and were less appealing to look at.

it is much easier to commit to one fertilizer formula as unrealistic as that may be in terms of being universally effective for every species, every genera. As a commited hobbyist I would like to tell you I only give this plant this and this plant that but in reality, we only have so much time.

As a result I switched from it. I also continue to make other changes. Potting media, ect. And Lance that was over a period of time. Some before, many after. It was only a switch from the moss to coir. I make changes slowly and do so in the best judgement I can.


----------



## Marco (May 22, 2015)

Chicago Chad said:


> it is much easier to commit to one fertilizer formula as unrealistic as that may be in terms of being universally effective for every species, every genera. As a commited hobbyist I would like to tell you I only give this plant this and this plant that but in reality, we only have so much time.



I completely agree with this. Fortunately, right now I can count all of my plants between my ten fingers and ten toes. Watering with multiple types of fertilizer won't be to over-bearing. So I will be using K-lite on some phals.


----------



## Stone (May 23, 2015)

Chicago Chad said:


> In regards to your comment Ray I should have stated that I always and only use distilled water on all my plants so I am starting at 0 TDS. That is why I felt I could alternate with a varying level of fertilizer that could reach up to 1 tsp. That is still far lower on TDS than most people's water. I generally apply 1/4 tsp. I fertilizer every watering because of the distilled water.
> 
> Naoki I am currently using a urea based fertilizer as Tom is. I am also alternating formulas monthly between this and MSU. This goes against what many orchid growers tell me to do. I believe their rational was that urea doesn't absorb well. I could be mistaken so don't hold me to it.



Chad, You may also want to consider adding (to the above ferts) an organic fraction to the feeding solution. As you use distilled water there are no bicarbonates present and I feel orchids need a very low level of them. Organic fertilizers will supply that but on top of that they also supply things like silica, aluminium, sodium, chloride, nickel, organic nitrogen, selenium, various other organic compounds etc etc. But you need to research some of the good organic suppliers and find a high quality product. (or of course you can make your own which is the best way). The rate you use it at will be VERY low but I find I get the best results when I include it.
One reason the Klite work better with the brachys may be the fact that they come from neutral pH habitats (or at least with pH moderation with the limestone). Nitrate is formed more readily in warm neutral pH conditions so the limestone plants may well be more adapted to nitrates over ammonium.
Klite is all nitrate nitrogen. (apart from not having enough K or S...IMO) 
The sangii, hookeri, wardii, venustum, anitum grow without limestone so they may respond to higher leves of ammonium/urea. As would the New Guinea Dends. Just a thought.


----------



## Bjorn (May 23, 2015)

Perhaps I should add my experiences to this as well? I used k-lite solely at a concentration of 3-400ppmTDS (I am fertigating i.e. this concentration in all water) for a whole season and got good results except for the leaves gettingincreasingly yellowish. 

Next year I intermixed with an urea foliar feed 50:50 at approximately same TDS (300ppm) and the leaf colors improved.

Then I decided to go for the foliar feed only(not as foliar feed but in the water) at approximately 100ppmTDS (gives some 20ppm N most urea) with Ca and Mg additions and frankly not much of a difference but perhaps a bit healthier plants? 

Id did feel that the supply of some essential micros was getting a bit low, so this season I decided to make my own mix that had no urea, but loads of ammonium, a bit more potassium than k-lite but with an entirely different micro make up. E.g. Manganese is four to five times higher than in k-lite.
I am feeding now at approximately 60ppm TDS (5-10ppm N) and things have never been as trouble free and seemingly growing well. i must admit that I am using kelp additionally, perhaps once a month.

In my opinion, k-lite was a leap forward, but suffered from two weaknesses. Too litttle ammonium/urea and the micros are not sufficient or correctly balanced for paphs. Particularly manganese and boron could well be higher in my opinion. The most important outcome from my growing is perhaps the recognition (and this should be obvious, the plants are from nature accomodated to this) that orchids only need tiny amounts of fertiliser, if any, except what comes from the water. Barndom Tam from the Huntington collection wrote that they only feed with Ca-nitrate additional to what is in their water. And nobody can tell that they do not produce nice plants? Of course they could be blessed with good water, and those of you that use RO or distilled water should pay some extra attention to the micros. Most mixes have not a particulaly wide range of micros and that is one of the reasons why eg kelp is so beneficial, but generally the plants are better of with a low dose. Fertilise very weakly -always.


----------



## Carper (May 23, 2015)

Following on from comments by Bjorn's and Chicago Stud, I have used the K-lite at various times in between using Akerne, which is an MSU equivalent of 13-3-15 with Calcium and Mg. I use RO water and have done so for a quite a few years so I can monitor what the plants are getting. I have had some excellent results with my mainly paph MF collection while using the Akerne but when I use the K-Lite, the effects of yellowing of the leaves is very apparent in a short space of time. There doesn't seem any improvement in root growth either so I revert back to Akerne and consider adding other elements like Epson Salts to correct the situation. For me in the UK the main difference to most is the amount of light which is short in winter and temp levels. I feed around the 200 u/S in winter weekly and max of 600 u/S through summer. My recent observations are my plants seem to grow better when feed was around the 400 u/S mark. Foliage and roots were growing well and with increasing light/temp levels at this time of year the plants had that spurt of growth. The only thing I've noticed as I do have some very large paphs with multiple growths, is the flower count on some are lower than I would expect. Rather than increase the feed strength which is what I was doing, I now incorporate Dyna Grow Bloom feed at the same strengths around once per month as an alternative to see if this makes any difference. I have a number of phals which have been in flower for a good few months now and have given these the same treatment. I have noticed further flower production and multi-spiking on these in just few months treatment which is interesting. The effect on the paphs won't be noticeable obviously until they bloom. I do use triacontanol which I have done for a number years now and it has definitely helped the plants apparently photosynthesize at lower light levels which helps us in the UK. I also been using the foliar feed version which is also making good improvements in the foliage. My medium are the varying grades of orchiata with a bit of added perlite or foam and always "pot on"so as not to disturb the root system. 

With recent use of K-lite and it's now happened quite a few times I still look for alternatives and was looking at Mono-ammonium phosphate. What application rate to use and this will be on a few selected plants to begin with I would appreciate comments on. I may incorporate Seaweed Extract to this aswell. 

Gary
UK


----------



## jtrmd (May 23, 2015)

Chicago Chad said:


> Chris if you want my feedback please message me.



I started to have some of the same issues after a good start with it. I switched back to my old fertilizer, after using what I bought, and repotting this spring. I thought I was the only one having issues until you mentioned it. I suppose the old saying,'' what works for one person, doesn't mean it will work for you''. I suppose my mix (bark based, and city water) didn't want to cooperate.


----------



## Marco (May 23, 2015)

Chad / Tom K. - When you were using K-lite did you use purely K-lite? Or did you any additives with the k-lite? Did you foliar feed or spray/water the roots directly?

Naoki - Agreed the information on this forum is invaluable. It allows folks to be as informed as possible before making decisions especially away from something thats been working for them.


----------



## gonewild (May 23, 2015)

Question to growers that noticed poor(er) growth with K-lite or yellowing leaves....

Did you notice any difference in disease or pest problems during the time you used K-lite?


----------



## myxodex (May 23, 2015)

I haven't used Klite, but I have somewhat reduced K.
I have switched to a high N: low K homemade food inspired by the low K idea. My paphs, mainly barbata types, are definately happier. Part of this I suspect is the lower NH4 component of the N, and therefore easier control of progressive acidification of potting mix which was a problem for me. However, I've also switched to orchiata and I now think that my former bark was just nasty. So although I haven't been using Klite, and I haven't controlled any experiments, and changed a whole bunch of things at the same time, I am convinced that my paphs, at least, don't require the high K levels as in MSU and some other formulations. I use a NPK 7:1:1 formulation, so more K to N than Klite, because it is unclear to me whether plants on Klite + RO water can actually use all the N given to them due to S limitation. 

I now begin to suspect that some of my other orchids might need a bit more K. My Neos and mounted Aerangis species have not been quite as as happy on this. The issue is not how they grow in the summer so much but their robustness during their winter dormancy. It seems that on the high N : low K diet during summer growth season they then seem to need more water during the winter dormancy than before, else they become shrivelled, this is new to me. Before switching to NPK 7:1:1, I used to give both these types a few (dilute) waterings of a bloom food (high PK) at the end of the growth season (October) and then nothing but light mistings of water twice a week from mid-to-late November right through to mid April or until I saw root growth. I got this idea from a more experienced grower years ago who said that the high PK ("bloom") ferts "harden" the plants for dormancy. After reading the MSU and Klite motivations about low P and low K respectively, I became convinced that the bloom food idea was nonsense and I stopped the pre-dormancy "hardening feed". Now I'm not so sure anymore, not about blooming per se, but about the dry dormancy. My aerangis, although not the neos, seem to have become less routine about their dormancy, sort of stop/start messing about until Feb or even March, as though they are reluctant to enter dormancy and then the spring flush of growth is less pronounced and vigorous than it was before. It would make a certain amount of sense that certain epiphytic orchids might need and accumulate more K if they have to deal with a dry season given that K is a major plant osmolyte.


----------



## Ray (May 23, 2015)

Some very interesting observations here.

My own great experience with K-Lite with my entire collection - paphs, phrags, catts, oncids, encyclias, vandaceous of all sorts, including neos, phals, pleurothallids, etc. - may indicate that my supplementation with KelpMax and Inocucor Garden Solution is "filling in some blanks". The "bugs" in the IGS may be making some otherwise trapped nutrients available.


----------



## tomkalina (May 23, 2015)

Lance - Didn't notice any disease or pest problems while using K-Lite; just the yellowing leaves and a general slowing of growth in Paph/Phrag compots and seedlings.

Marco - I used K-Lite dissolved in RO water for about a year at 15-20 ppm [N]. Every fourth watering, I flushed the pots with straight Chicago (Lake Michigan) water which had a TDS of 220 ppm, for the micro-nutrients. During that time I noticed a gradual yellowing of non-Parvi Paph. leaves and Phrag. leaves - especially besseae and it's hybrids. Prior to K-Lite , I fertilized with Miracid 30-10-10 (which is urea based) at a 70 ppm [N]. After discussing besseae culture with ST'er "John M" I began alternated the 30-10-10 with 10-52-10 which is also urea based, and achieved the best plant growth I've seen in a couple of years. 

General Observation - There's an old saying in orchid culture - "What works for you works for you". I've seen glorious growth in both Paphs and Phrags under conditions that I would consider sub-standard and poor growth in conditions I'd consider optimal. The best growing occurred when cultural conditions were not constantly changing. Decide on a mix, a fertilizer, a watering schedule and a growing area that has a decent amount of light, humidity and good air movement and let the plants do their thing. It's what I've heard people call "benign neglect".


----------



## gonewild (May 23, 2015)

tomkalina said:


> Lance - Didn't notice any disease or pest problems while using K-Lite; just the yellowing leaves and a general slowing of growth in Paph/Phrag compots and seedlings.



Did you notice any less disease (rot) while using low K.



> I used K-Lite dissolved in RO water for about a year at 15-20 ppm [N]. Every fourth watering, I flushed the pots with straight Chicago (Lake Michigan) water which had a TDS of 220 ppm, for the micro-nutrients.



In my opinion that is no where near enough nutrients to keep the plants growing and green assuming you have a good strong growing environment. I think you would have seen green leaves had you applied 15-20ppm with every watering. Or even higher rates in line with the other formulas you use. Low doses of nutrients only support plant growth when they are in constant supply. Basically applying the low dose with only 25% of the waterings means your plants are trying to grow without nutrients 75% of the time. This is true no matter what your fertilizer nutrient ratio is.


----------



## TyroneGenade (May 23, 2015)

I have been using K-lite for just over a year and the plants are still green. Those dose a is 50 ppm N (1/3 tsp in 1 gal). I grow semi-hydroponic. In summer the plants stand in the K-lite and are misted daily. In winter they stand in RO and get misted with K-lite every day.

The only exceptions to the generally good growth are a spicerianum that seems to be going backwards. My roth and St Swithin also seems to be stagnating. It grows new leaves but only at the expense of an old leaf. The roth is also a bit yellow. Perhaps it needs a higher dose? The roth gets a lot of sun so perhaps it is pale because it has ample light?

Ray, the idea of the KelpMax to supplement is a good idea.


----------



## consettbay2003 (May 23, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> I have been using K-lite for just over a year and the plants are still green. Those dose a is 50 ppm N (1/3 tsp in 1 gal). I grow semi-hydroponic. In summer the plants stand in the K-lite and are misted daily. In winter they stand in RO and get misted with K-lite every day.
> 
> The only exceptions to the generally good growth are a spicerianum that seems to be going backwards. My roth and St Swithin also seems to be stagnating. It grows new leaves but only at the expense of an old leaf. The roth is also a bit yellow. Perhaps it needs a higher dose? The roth gets a lot of sun so perhaps it is pale because it has ample light?
> 
> Ray, the idea of the KelpMax to supplement is a good idea.



My problems with the exclusive use of K-Lite started to occur after one year.
It wasn't pretty.


----------



## phraggy (May 23, 2015)

Carper said:


> Following on from comments by Bjorn's and Chicago Stud, I have used the K-lite at various times in between using Akerne, which is an MSU equivalent of 13-3-15 with Calcium and Mg. I use RO water and have done so for a quite a few years so I can monitor what the plants are getting. I have had some excellent results with my mainly paph MF collection while using the Akerne but when I use the K-Lite, the effects of yellowing of the leaves is very apparent in a short space of time. There doesn't seem any improvement in root growth either so I revert back to Akerne and consider adding other elements like Epson Salts to correct the situation. For me in the UK the main difference to most is the amount of light which is short in winter and temp levels. I feed around the 200 u/S in winter weekly and max of 600 u/S through summer. My recent observations are my plants seem to grow better when feed was around the 400 u/S mark. Foliage and roots were growing well and with increasing light/temp levels at this time of year the plants had that spurt of growth. The only thing I've noticed as I do have some very large paphs with multiple growths, is the flower count on some are lower than I would expect. Rather than increase the feed strength which is what I was doing, I now incorporate Dyna Grow Bloom feed at the same strengths around once per month as an alternative to see if this makes any difference. I have a number of phals which have been in flower for a good few months now and have given these the same treatment. I have noticed further flower production and multi-spiking on these in just few months treatment which is interesting. The effect on the paphs won't be noticeable obviously until they bloom. I do use triacontanol which I have done for a number years now and it has definitely helped the plants apparently photosynthesize at lower light levels which helps us in the UK. I also been using the foliar feed version which is also making good improvements in the foliage. My medium are the varying grades of orchiata with a bit of added perlite or foam and always "pot on"so as not to disturb the root system.
> 
> With recent use of K-lite and it's now happened quite a few times I still look for alternatives and was looking at Mono-ammonium phosphate. What application rate to use and this will be on a few selected plants to begin with I would appreciate comments on. I may incorporate Seaweed Extract to this aswell.
> 
> ...



Was going to ask the same question Gary. Anyone on the other side of the pond tried using phosphate of ammonia.?? Does it help the roots to take up nutrients??

Ed


----------



## papheteer (May 23, 2015)

I too had problems with using K-lite and RO water. My plants seriously became bleached. Crushed oyster shells made things worse.

I've been using pure urea and 30-10-10 urea based exclusively (with tap water) for at least a year now. I am happy with the results. I do supplement with Kelp (Kelpmax from Ray and Seaplex), fulvic, humic, and amino acids. I also used to adjust my pH close to 6.5 with phosphoric acid but I haven't in a while. Plants don't seem to mind.

I do try to go light on K whenever I can. I do believe it makes a difference.

I did have problems with orchiata as well but now that i'm using Urea, and watering more often, plants in it are growing like crazy.

I think it's the combination of K-lite (lack of ammonium N)my tap water, and underwatering (and the lime in orchiata) that made it not work for me.


----------



## papheteer (May 23, 2015)

I must add one thing though. Root growth was better when I supplied some nitrate. Has anyone noticed this too? Is there any scientific explanation to this?


----------



## Carper (May 23, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Question to growers that noticed poor(er) growth with K-lite or yellowing leaves....
> 
> Did you notice any difference in disease or pest problems during the time you used K-lite?



The odd plant, like a phrag besseae and a roth did seem to develop some browning on the leaves but this has since stopped. Apart from that I didn't notice any significant problems, however, the plants looked weaker and with the yellowing leaves it wasn't positive.

Gary
UK


----------



## Carper (May 23, 2015)

papheteer said:


> I too had problems with using K-lite and RO water. My plants seriously became bleached. Crushed oyster shells made things worse.
> 
> I've been using pure urea and 30-10-10 urea based exclusively (with tap water) for at least a year now. I am happy with the results. I do supplement with Kelp (Kelpmax from Ray and Seaplex), fulvic, humic, and amino acids. I also used to adjust my pH close to 6.5 with phosphoric acid but I haven't in a while. Plants don't seem to mind.
> 
> ...



At what strength do you feed at and do you mix with the Kelp?

Gary
UK


----------



## tomkalina (May 23, 2015)

Lance - I think you misunderstood; I was applying K-Lite three out of four waterings, then flushing with tap water on the fourth watering for the micros. Since returning to the 30-10-10, etc. regimen at the equivalent of 1/4 tsp/gal, my observed growth rate has improved and the leaves are a darker green. If you do the math, 1/4 tsp/gal of 30-10-10 gives you an equivalent of approx 70 ppm [N]. Hard to describe and subjective, but the plants just look like they're doing better. Can't see any effect of alternating 30-10-10 with the 10-52-10 fert yet, because it's been only a couple of waterings with the product. And I've seen no increase in diseases or insects since the change to a urea based fertilizer.


----------



## theshatterings (May 23, 2015)

I have somewhat similar experiences with Bjorn and I think K-lite definitely improved the hobbyist orchid nutrition experience a great deal. Hopefully all these comments will help when K-lite 2.0 is released : D

I grow mostly phals in 100% NZ sphagnum, with the exception of cochlearis and gigantea which are in a mix that I'm growing paphs in (orchiata, perlite, charcoal). Without the low K, algae growth using 100% moss at home would have been a total pain. For paphs, I'm only growing multifloral species at the moment: lowii, sanderianum, rothschildianum, stonei and kolopakingii. 

I've been using K-lite for about two years consistently at ~10 ppmN at every watering in RO water. Although I didn't see much growth, all my plants were still totally fine. In the past six months, I made a small change thanks to the discussions here by adding back 10% of our municipal water and I have seen a marked improvement since. We get a yearly report on water quality and even though our water supply is really hard, there are definitely a lot other additional micros in there when used at an average of ~50 ppmTDS with ~10 ppmN K-lite. I'm actually thinking of cutting K-lite back a little further to keep the final TDS below 100 ppm. The only additive I add is a drop or two of Superthrive (when I remember) just for a bit of NAA action.

Here's a group pic of how my paphs are doing with this regiment.


----------



## gonewild (May 23, 2015)

tomkalina said:


> Lance - I think you misunderstood; I was applying K-Lite three out of four waterings, then flushing with tap water on the fourth watering for the micros. Since returning to the 30-10-10, etc. regimen at the equivalent of 1/4 tsp/gal, my observed growth rate has improved and the leaves are a darker green. If you do the math, 1/4 tsp/gal of 30-10-10 gives you an equivalent of approx 70 ppm [N]. Hard to describe and subjective, but the plants just look like they're doing better. Can't see any effect of alternating 30-10-10 with the 10-52-10 fert yet, because it's been only a couple of waterings with the product. And I've seen no increase in diseases or insects since the change to a urea based fertilizer.



Yes Tom I did misunderstand, I reversed your times.
Don't misunderstand I'm not defending K-lite with my comments. What I was saying had nothing to do with the K.
When your plants were yellow on K-lite they were getting as little as 15ppm of N. Then you switched to 30-10-10 and now they get 70ppm of N. That's over 4 times more N now. My thought is if you had increased the K-lite to 70ppm they would have greened up and grew better because of the nutrient increase...... 
I'm not convinced that the low nutrient doses are the best way to grow. Most of the poor results seem like they are coupled to low ppm applications and or nitrate/ammonia issues and not the low K.
The idea with the K-lite formula was a test to see the effect of reducing the K content. So the unanswered question in the poor results is it because of the lack of K or the lack of ammonia N.

I don't use K-lite, I make my own formulas using nitrates and ammonia. Increasing the ammonia defiantly causes a growth flush and greens up the foliage compared to mostly Nitrate. What I do see is an increase in leaf disease issues with the ammonia combined with higher K levels as compared to nitrates and low K. I've also repeatedly applied high rates of K and when I do it is like turning on bacterial rot symptoms. When I reduce the K the symptoms stop, increase the K and symptoms start again.

I'm curious why people have reduced the nutrient doses for K-lite down to 20ppm from 100ppm? K-lite already had a huge reduction in P and K.

Is it the low K or low total nutrient dose that is giving poor results to some people?


----------



## tomkalina (May 23, 2015)

Lance,

Thanks for the clarification. Based on our results, I agree that low nutrient levels may not be the best way to optimize ex-vitro orchid culture. I visited Hausermann's Orchids in Villa Park, IL this March, and saw some of the largest, best looking Parvi's (both species and hybrids, but especially Paph. malipoense) that I'd ever seen. I asked Jim Hausermann a lot of questions re: their culture and he said they were fertilizing with a urea based fertilizer at a [N] of 170 ppm (!) and a TDS close to 500 ppm (!!!) This is certainly contrary to the low-dose direction, regardless of natural habitat conditions. And yet the plants looked beautiful..... When asked whether they had done any testing of low K fertilizers, he said they had done so on their Phalaenopsis and the result was yellowing of the leaves and shorter flower stems, so they discontinued the use of the product. 

Growing slipper orchids is an art, although there is some science involved - especially regarding water quality and fertilization. The best growers have an intuitive sense of what their plants need, and spend more time analyzing than changing their cultural practices. If your plants are growing well, don't mess with them. Back in the day when I was doing talks on slipper orchid culture, I always told my audience that if they were growing their Paphs well, for God's sake don't go home and change everything around based on my talk - you will be disappointed with the results. Slipper orchid culture is not seven different environmental factors that can be separated and modified individually to achieve a particular goal, because when one is modified it changes the dynamic of all the others. It's an extremely complex interaction, and the reason why many enthusiasts, impatient to see growth improvement, change things too frequently and fail.


----------



## gonewild (May 23, 2015)

tomkalina said:


> Lance,
> I asked Jim Hausermann a lot of questions re: their culture and he said they were fertilizing with a urea based fertilizer at a [N] of 170 ppm (!) and a TDS close to 500 ppm (!!!) This is certainly contrary to the low-dose direction, regardless of natural habitat conditions.



A TDS of 650ppm was always my target when we were growing commercially. Plants grew great but they were not held long term. The idea was grow them up fast and sell them. It's not too much if you have optimum greenhouse conditions and the nutrients happen to be in the correct ratio balance. That means balanced between water, fertilizer and growing media. 



> When asked whether they had done any testing of low K fertilizers, he said they had done so on their Phalaenopsis and the result was yellowing of the leaves and shorter flower stems, so they discontinued the use of the product.



I wonder if they used the same 500 tds for the low K or if they reduced to dose and it was to low? Yellow leaves and short flower stems is not recorded result with K level trials for Phals. But it obviously was for them. 
Could be something related to CO2 levels need to be higher when K is lower when the light is bright. There are too many possible variations to ever know the answer.


----------



## Stone (May 23, 2015)

gonewild said:


> > Yellow leaves and short flower stems is not recorded result with K level trials for Phals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (May 23, 2015)

Bjorn said:


> > In my opinion, k-lite was a leap forward,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bullsie (May 23, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Question to growers that noticed poor(er) growth with K-lite or yellowing leaves....
> 
> Did you notice any difference in disease or pest problems during the time you used K-lite?



I started using K-lite last fall when I got my r/o system. Into the first of this year, I had a lot of poorly growing Catts. As a matter of fact, I lost a lot of plants - which surprised me. Seedlings that should have started taking off when the days got longer were struggling. Phrags are struggling. (just got Paphs w the recent auction so can't say). Last week I stopped using K-lite. I didn't see this post till this evening - it's been a long week.

Weak, spindly growth and in some instances followed by rot. Nothing had changed but the fertilizer and r/o water. I was thrilled to not have the salt build-up using the r/o water. But something had gone wrong. 

I am now using Miracle gro for orchids (I had invested in K-lite after using up my other fertilizers), which I had on hand.


----------



## papheteer (May 23, 2015)

One thing I have learned the past year is that, yes, nutrition is a big part of good orchid culture. But it's not nearly the most important part. A lot of people, including myself, expect great results by changing their fertilizer when their basic culture (watering, light, air circulation, temps, etc) is sub-optimal. For me I think the biggest change I have made is to water more often. I have discovered that I've always been an underwaterer. I just noticed that everytime I water, even with just tap water, my plants green up and grow like crazy. Changing to urea-based feed just enhanced the results.


----------



## Bjorn (May 24, 2015)

Stone said:


> Bjorn said:
> 
> 
> > But what do you base that opinion on Bjorn? You can't base an opinion on some incomplete theory. You need to look at the overwhelming evidence. It has been known for decades that too much K can lead to problems in some circumstaces. But not the kind of concentrations we use on orchids. Now people are beginning to see problems with very low K. Adding ammonium or Urea to K-lite will make it even worse. All trials with orchids have found K levels should be around 50%(more or less) of the N. Otherwize you get early leaf drop, fewer flowers etc.
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (May 24, 2015)

papheteer said:


> One thing I have learned the past year is that, yes, nutrition is a big part of good orchid culture. But it's not nearly the most important part. A lot of people, including myself, expect great results by changing their fertilizer when their basic culture (watering, light, air circulation, temps, etc) is sub-optimal. For me I think the biggest change I have made is to water more often. I have discovered that I've always been an underwaterer. I just noticed that everytime I water, even with just tap water, my plants green up and grow like crazy. Changing to urea-based feed just enhanced the results.



Fully agree keep them wet if they come from the islands, have a drier winter if they are from the monsoon areas. I water almost every day and my plants are never totally dry. And another thing, fertilise in all water, but very weakly


----------



## Stone (May 24, 2015)

Bjorn said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Ray (May 24, 2015)

papheteer said:


> One thing I have learned the past year is that, yes, nutrition is a big part of good orchid culture. But it's not nearly the most important part. A lot of people, including myself, expect great results by changing their fertilizer when their basic culture (watering, light, air circulation, temps, etc) is sub-optimal. For me I think the biggest change I have made is to water more often. I have discovered that I've always been an underwaterer. I just noticed that everytime I water, even with just tap water, my plants green up and grow like crazy. Changing to urea-based feed just enhanced the results.


I think this is one of the most astute comments I've seen in a while.

Considering the environment in which most orchids have evolved, logically, watering frequency is fairly high and nutrition is fairly low on their "Maslow's Heirarchy".

Your plants will grow much better if watered frequently, no matter what fertilizer you may be using.

Oh - and by the way, I am not seeing shorter flower spikes at all. In fact, I see just the opposite.


----------



## gonewild (May 24, 2015)

Stone said:


> There is no need (or use) in looking for other explanations



OK, you win this time. It's pointless, I won't be sharing any more worthless info or opinions.


----------



## cnycharles (May 24, 2015)

Yes, i'm writing this, and it is long as usual and beware it's likely boring 

From my limited observations, Klite was better than the 13-2-13 and the rest of whatever I do to grow, and Klite did show an improvement. It is unfortunate that I had to move so many times, had landlords that disagreed with higher humidity in their buildings or some who kept me moving my carts to places where they wouldn't prosper etc and too many competing interests. With the plug feed (13213) you would think it would be better having lower amounts of macros and lower k than quite a few Hort fertilizers for growing annuals and perennials; plants decreased in size and would look pale and yellow, lost plants. 
After move and started using Klite with same water especially with phrag seedlings sitting in slight water always things looked better. Unfortunately I lost a bunch of plants because first place I had them before setting up light cart was too dark and plants too wet. During both previous times I also was trying a repot using that calcium sand for aquariums and pH was getting too high. After moving to north jersey I had to move plants a few times but when was able to have plants in one spot I used the well water and Klite and plants looked good while I was there. Here I largely removed the media with that sand which I'm sure helped, it was burning plants up. The well water in that area had lots of sulphur, you could smell it; I think lite fertilizer with the sulfur was a good thing. 
From what I've seen here there are more people who wanted to try this because they were not satisfied with what was happening with their plants. My take at the start was that it was and is a likely good starting point, and it was going to need tweaking to add or adjust things to be a good base fertilizer for generalist orchid growers. The fact is that there never will be any one fertilizer which will work for every genera and conditions. At the greenhouses in Utica we had very clean water and at a minimum at the fert injector station there were four barrels of different concentrated fertilizers and depending on seasonal crops, those would get changed, and during a growth cycle you would likely alternate these for the best growth and flowering response. 
Other nurseries including the ones in north jersey had to inject acid into their water to get the best range for their crops; where I am now the water at work is too acidic. 
Expecting one unadjusted fertilizer to work for all orchids or other plants is unrealistic. Won't work. Railing on any particular type as awful and unusable (Klite or any other) is extremely unproductive. Trying things to find a better method or approach is what should be done. Observing what works for who during any general trial and what doesn't is extremely valuable, even if not scientific or unpublished. Who is going to pay for a scientific trial for thousands of different orchids for us to read? Very few. 
From what I've seen if you don't have the right pH then it doesn't matter if you have the right amount or balance of food or water. If you don't have the right air movement and water available at the right time, with the proper warmth and light, then unhappy plants react by slowing stopping or dying. If you have a really good climate though with lots of warmth and sun plus the right pH and you can be liberal with the hose often the plants can adjust to food as long as you don't overwhelm them. 
So growers need a base they can start with, to adjust and add for the conditions they have, and they are going to have to research to find out what environmental conditions their plants need. One unadjusted food isn't going to be the answer in most cases. I think Klite 1 is a good start, but in concept, for most people. I think MSU was on the right track knowing that different starting water necessitates different base feeds. If you have certain water conditions and pH then you need a different base. I think this feed needs some more micros or as a package supply a packet if micros separately so that a given level could be added to your stock after you've set your concentration of macros; this way you aren't thinning them out too much if you are using a very low rate of whatever is coming out of the bag or bottle. And every plant grower should have some way to test watering pH and adjust. Think a little more phosphorus and potassium would help, more sulfur also. 
The stories of people not ever fertilizing or only using calcium nitrate and having good results is that you can have success with very little or limited range food. Often those who have broad success have great conditions and they can liberally water with whatever and things look happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## orcoholic (May 24, 2015)

Here's my 2 cents on what's going on with K-lite and consistent use in minimal amounts. I believe this is why many are seeing yellowing leaves. 

First, I haven't seen any mention of what the Ph is. Without a neutral Ph - say around 6 to around 7.5 - the orchids may not be able to take up the nutrients in the fertilizer solution regardless of how much fertilizer is used.

It is particularly important to check Ph when using RO water because of its lack of buffering capacity. Adding the smallest amounts of acid based fertilizers can dramatically reduce the Ph and make any fertilizer ineffective. Probably the same with basic fertilizers.

Assuming Ph is in a proper range, and the other conditions are good for orchid growing, if the orchid is not getting enough fertilizer to support nice, healthy, green growth the newer growth will try to get the NPK, Ca, Mg, and micronutrients from the nutrients in the existing leaves. A problem is that Ca and micronutrients are too large to pass into the new growth. They are established in the new growth when the new growth happens and they stay there. 

Thus, when underfertilized orchids don't have enough food to produce good, healthy new growth they have nowhere to get enough nutrition and produce poor new growth that tries to cannabalise the old growth to get what it needs. This nutrition deficiency obviously can't work for any period of time. Once the N is taken from the old leaves and since there's not enough N in the orchids regular diet, the leaves yellow.

I really don't think it has a lot to do with the amount of NH3 or NH4, as long as there's enough N. In my observation, NH4 will cause rapid, yet soft growth and should not be used during dormant or slow growing months. NH3 is okay for year round growing, but orchids will be larger and flower better if NH4 is given during the growing season.

The fertilizer itself is not that important as long as it is complete - i.e. contains all the micronutrients, etc. - *and there is enough of it.*

I have not had any problems watering any orchids using a Ph of 6.5 and an e.c. of about .8 - 1 in the spring and fall and an e.c. of .5 or below during the summers and winters - (the seasons the orchids aren't growing).

I grow Paphs, Phrags, Phals, Catts, Dens, Ascos, Lycastes, and many other genera. No Masd or Pleuros. I literally have a few thousand orchids.

This year I was in 3 shows and got a best hybrid, best Catt. species and best Oncidium, and best Maxillaria (Lycaste) in show. I also got a CCM on a Phrag. I'm not telling you this to brag (well let's be honest - maybe a little) but to give proof that my growing method works, and I believe will work for anyone.

It is incomprehensible that orchids will grow better with fertilizer amounts like 10ppmN when they can tolerate more. Every other plant I've ever grown has done better with more fertilizer - UP TO A POINT. Grow any two plants next to each other. Give one 10ppmM and the other the max amount recommended for it and let us which grows better.

The amount of fertilizer that should be applied is the amount the orchids can take without hurting them in order to produce nice strong green growth. That's where the art of growing orchids overtakes the science. As I said above, for me it's a Ph of 6.5 with an ec of near 1 during the growing months and half that during the winter. You can be assured that yours won't be far from that.


----------



## consettbay2003 (May 24, 2015)

It is my experience that the use of nitrate as the only source of nitrogen for
paphs. can be problematic.


----------



## paphioland (May 24, 2015)

I usually don't post my growing because I don't like to get into debates about what caused what. I am pretty sure in my growing conditions what I see everyday. I tried lowering my K, then my fertilizer concentration then my urea supplementation after reading all the hoopla. I am so sorry I did. I got decreased light tolerance. I kept having to decrease light on time and distance from the light on the indoor orchids. Decreased growth and to top it off a pretty severe fungal infection. This is only after maybe 6 months. I also supplement with co2 and grow at higher temperatures than most and I used to get amazing growth with rich green leaves. The plants couldn't handle it. I went from having amazing growth to problem after problem. I have gone back to a balanced fertilizer at 300ppm supplementing again with seaweed and urea. The plants seem to be recovering but it was a nightmare. I really am disappointed in myself for getting caught up in a trend that I read about and others told me about when I had a system that was working well for myself and some other amazing growers.


----------



## paphioland (May 24, 2015)

consettbay2003 said:


> It is my experience that the use of nitrate as the only source of nitrogen for
> paphs. can be problematic.



I agree. I used to be urea crazy. Never had a problem. Then I reduced K. Then I started having problems. Blamed it on the UREA. So I decreased fertilizer concentration totally after reading these forums. Had more problems. Read all this low light stuff so I decreased daylight which helped. Then my leaf growth started stunting. Then color kept getting less rich. Then I got a nasty fungal infection. That was it. I have gone back to my old regimen and in 2 months they are mostly looking great again.


----------



## Ray (May 24, 2015)

orcoholic said:


> Without a neutral Ph - say around 6 to around 7.5 - the orchids may not be able to take up the nutrients in the fertilizer solution regardless of how much fertilizer is used.


May I ask the basis of that statement?

The only study I have ever seen relating to pH and nutrient uptake was a test of one fertilizer passed through soil. In the case of soil, which has a CEC orders of magnitude higher than do orchid media, the pH affects the ion trapping capacity of the soil, and has no known impact on how the roots can-, or cannot take up the ions.


Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com


----------



## orcoholic (May 24, 2015)

Ray said:


> May I ask the basis of that statement?



As stated, Ray, this is from my experience. 

I would think that logic would dictate you can't grow at Ph 2 or 12, so somewhere in the middle should work. It does for me. It would be interesting to see what happens if orchids were grown at 2 or 12.

Just out of curiosity, do you know the Ph of the rainwater that trickled down the tree you cited in prior discussions? I forget what the TDS was at on that water, but I remember it was really low. 

Also, do you know what the Ph of rainwater is? I'd be curious to know that too. If it's really high or low, I'd probably rethink my Ph limits, but they really work.

My purpose for posting wasn't to cite any scientific studies, etc. or to have any other basis other than personal experience.


----------



## gonewild (May 24, 2015)

orcoholic said:


> Also, do you know what the Ph of rainwater is?



Falling from the sky where the air is absolutely clear of pollution it is pH 7.0.
As it drips off of moss in the Peruvian cloud forest pH is 7.0.


----------



## consettbay2003 (May 24, 2015)

paphioland said:


> I usually don't post my growing because I don't like to get into debates about what caused what. I am pretty sure in my growing conditions what I see everyday. I tried lowering my K, then my fertilizer concentration then my urea supplementation after reading all the hoopla. I am so sorry I did. I got decreased light tolerance. I kept having to decrease light on time and distance from the light on the indoor orchids. Decreased growth and to top it off a pretty severe fungal infection. This is only after maybe 6 months. I also supplement with co2 and grow at higher temperatures than most and I used to get amazing growth with rich green leaves. The plants couldn't handle it. I went from having amazing growth to problem after problem. I have gone back to a balanced fertilizer at 300ppm supplementing again with seaweed and urea. The plants seem to be recovering but it was a nightmare. I really am disappointed in myself for getting caught up in a trend that I read about and others told me about when I had a system that was working well for myself and some other amazing growers.



Perhaps what appeared as a 'decreased light tolerance' was just your bog standard nutrient deficiency. 
My paphs. do not appear to be a follower of Mies van der Rohes precept that less is more.
For those using 10ppm N all I can say is tick tock.


----------



## Stone (May 24, 2015)

So....ChrisFL,

Does that answer you question? :rollhappy::rollhappy:


----------



## Stone (May 25, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Falling from the sky where the air is absolutely clear of pollution it is pH 7.0.
> As it drips off of moss in the Peruvian cloud forest pH is 7.0.



I'm surprized by that. One of our club members took the same readings in an Ecuadorian Odontoglossum habitat (cloud forest again) and got a reading of pH 4 off the dripping moss.


----------



## ehanes7612 (May 25, 2015)

I used to grow in CHC and fertilizer with higher K than K lite..can't remember the name of it or the ratio. Great for seedlings out of flask but terrible for adults and seedlings two years and older. I switched to K-lite and repotted everything in bark/perlite/sphagnum. I noticed a remarkable improvement in new growths but wasn't sure why, yet I was still getting premature yellowing in mature growths. That was in the greenhouse. Last summer I moved everything back under lights (1000 watts/12 hours and four to six feet away) and since I didn't want to humidify beyond natural humidity , I made my mix more porous (also subbed rockwool for sphagnum) knowing I was going to water more often. I only grow multi paphs and phrags from deflasking to adults now and everything is growing great. For the first time, I am getting that nice shiny coat to the multifloral leaves (perhaps due to the low humidity/higher frequency in watering) and every succeeding growth is a healthy green. I water every other day, use k-lite once every two weeks for two waterings in a row at suggested strengths. My temps are constant 85-88 day and 60-63 night. I agree with Tom in that orchids have many ways at adapting but most of all they just want consistency. My plants get everything on the same schedule and nothing changes anymore (temps (differential as well as rate of change), watering, fertilizer ) and I use a mix that stays more consistent with time. My out of flask seedlings don't grow as fast at first but they look healthier, and I have a feeling they will catch up as they get older, and bloom on time.


----------



## Stone (May 25, 2015)

orcoholic said:


> > It is incomprehensible that orchids will grow better with fertilizer amounts like 10ppmN when they can tolerate more. Every other plant I've ever grown has done better with more fertilizer - UP TO A POINT. Grow any two plants next to each other. Give one 10ppmM and the other the max amount recommended for it and let us which grows better.
> >
> > The amount of fertilizer that should be applied is the amount the orchids can take without hurting them in order to produce nice strong green growth.
> 
> ...


----------



## orcoholic (May 25, 2015)

Stone said:


> orcoholic;537836
> So said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ray (May 25, 2015)

orcoholic said:


> As stated, Ray, this is from my experience.
> 
> I would think that logic would dictate you can't grow at Ph 2 or 12, so somewhere in the middle should work. It does for me. It would be interesting to see what happens if orchids were grown at 2 or 12.
> 
> ...



A pH or 2 or 12 is mighty extreme, and may very well alter the structure of the dissolved minerals, if not be damaging to the roots themselves, but my point was that the pH doesn't have to be a close to neutral as you proposed. 

Keeping in mind that plants can affect the pH of the rhizosphere, I have measured a pH of 4 in the reservoir of an S/H pot that had been watered with a fertilizer solution at 6.5 the day before.

There was no documented pH info in the "throughfall" data I have seen, but (and contrasting with Lance's comment), carbon dioxide from the air dissolves readily in water, and that equilibrium concentration gives a pH of roughly 5.4, so I think it's doubtful that it's too much different, with only about 15 ppm TDS.


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

Stone said:


> I'm surprized by that. One of our club members took the same readings in an Ecuadorian Odontoglossum habitat (cloud forest again) and got a reading of pH 4 off the dripping moss.



I define "rainwater" as rain that has just hit a solid object and has not had time to absorb anything. Nor has it had time to sit at low altitude and exchange gas.

Rainwater measured pH7.0 and dripping "rainwater" during a period of falling rain from epiphytic moss around orchids measured also pH7.0

Moss samples collected from 50 different spots in the same forest during the same 30 minute period were placed in a bag and mixed together.
Half of the moss was removed and all water was squeezed out of the moss into a sample cup. This sample contained mostly rainwater but also any moisture or juice that could be squeezed from the moss itself.
The field result was:
pH5.9
ec 0.25
102ppm

The other half of the moss sample was allowed to rest in the plastic bag overnight and then the water was squeezed out and tested.
Results:
pH5.5
ec 0.3
119ppm

pH 4.0 is very close to being considered a food preservative acidic level and lethal to most microbes so I doubt most orchids would flourish at that level.


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

Ray said:


> There was no documented pH info in the "throughfall" data I have seen, but (and contrasting with Lance's comment), carbon dioxide from the air dissolves readily in water, and that equilibrium concentration gives a pH of roughly 5.4, so I think it's doubtful that it's too much different, with only about 15 ppm TDS.



Ray I explained in the post above about my contrasting reading.
I don't see how we can consider water as rainwater once it has landed on the ground and starts reacting with solid compounds of even CO2 from the atmosphere. I collect rainwater in tanks and when it comes out of our tanks the pH has dropped because of the CO2 gas exchange but it has not picked up any nutrients. Throughfall water and rainwater are different in their pH. My observations while standing in the rain and looking at orchids indicate that most of the water volume that contacts the orchid roots have a near neutral pH in the free flow water.
I have some further observations to expand on this but unless someone asks I won't bother.

pH 4.0 is way to low and dangerous for most plants.


----------



## TyroneGenade (May 25, 2015)

consettbay2003 said:


> My problems with the exclusive use of K-Lite started to occur after one year.
> It wasn't pretty.



For the record, I'm well past a year and only have 3 issues: the backward spicerianum, the slow-growing resorbing nutrient roth (not unusual best I understand it), and the slightly better growing St Swithin which also resorbs new old leaves. Everything else seems happy and is putting out new growths without much issue. The K-light seems to work for me. 

I will try a little hard tap with the roth and spicerianum and see what difference that makes....

As regards pH: germination medium is set at about 5.4-5.8. I don't think maintaining a near neutral pH is important.

This is a very interesting thread. Seems the major variables are:
micro supplementation
water quality
urea vs NH4 vs NO3 N
ppm N
watering frequency
lighting level
humidity

Perhaps some enterprising soul can try their luck tabulating as much data from this thread under the above headings and see if there is a trend... I'm too busy.


----------



## orcoholic (May 25, 2015)

Ray said:


> Keeping in mind that plants can affect the pH of the rhizosphere, I have measured a pH of 4 in the reservoir of an S/H pot that had been watered with a fertilizer solution at 6.5 the day before.



So 6.5 Ph works or not?

I've read posts about measuring the Ph of the water that comes out of the pot, but could never see any point in doing that. I can only control what goes in. What comes out seems to be irrelevant to me. 

Also, the water comes out so fast, I wonder if the Ph could actually be affected that fast. Maybe, the exit water could be used to tell if the medium was going bad.

Have you ever watered mounted plants at Ph4? That would show if a Ph that low works of not.


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> As regards pH: germination medium is set at about 5.4-5.8. I don't think maintaining a near neutral pH is important.



No, but keeping the pH above 5.0 and below 7.5 is probably an important factor.
If not for the acidity factor then controlling the cause of of low or high pH.

Measuring the out flow and comparing the difference to the inflow will give you and idea of what was consumed between waterings.


pH6.5 is very good.


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

orcoholic said:


> So 6.5 Ph works or not?
> 
> I've read posts about measuring the Ph of the water that comes out of the pot, but could never see any point in doing that. I can only control what goes in. What comes out seems to be irrelevant to me.
> 
> Also, the water comes out so fast, I wonder if the Ph could actually be affected that fast. Maybe, the exit water could be used to tell if the medium was going bad.



When measuring the pH or ec of the water coming out of the pot it needs to be done using a small controlled amount of water. Then it somewhat represents what the media moisture contains. The measurement of water that comes out fast is of not much use.


----------



## bullsie (May 25, 2015)

My desert roses, Adenium obesum, loved the K-lite. I bought a handful of tiny seedlings. Watered them with the orchids with K-lite and growth was phenomenal. 4-6 inches of growth and nice big fat bases forming in five months. I've never had them grow so well. Am pleased!


----------



## Ray (May 25, 2015)

The folks at Greencare add citric acid to their fertilizers to enhance solubility. Because of that, my applied solutions have been in the 5.0-5.5 range for years.

However, it is NOT the pH of the applied solutions that matter (unless they are too extreme, of course), it is the resulting pH of the rhizosphere (roots and medium) that's important. That can be more accurately assessed by measuring the pH of the pour-through.

With my applied fertilizer at pH=5.0-5.5, or at 6.5, the pour through I measured was consistently in the 5.5-5.8 range.

As to the pH in a S/H reservoir, this was an investigation that was done by several of us quite a few years ago. The pH varied drastically, based upon the time of day it was measured. If you measured a complete refresh with a pH=6.5 solution immediately, that's what you'll read. When we measured it after several hours of sunlight, and it had changed. Measuring it again after the plant was sitting in the dark overnight, when different biological processes had occurred, and the pH was different again, only to return to the prior level after more daylight.

I do recall seeing 4.0, but frankly don't recall if that was the day-, or night reading.


----------



## orcoholic (May 25, 2015)

Ray said:


> However, it is NOT the pH of the applied solutions that matter (unless they are too extreme, of course), it is the resulting pH of the rhizosphere (roots and medium) that's important. That can be more accurately assessed by measuring the pH of the pour-through.



Ray,

I don't know how you can conclude this. How do you explain epiphytes in-situ as they relate to the relevance of water in a pot??? If the Ph of the applied water is not important how do in-situ orchids manage? Rainwater is about 7, I think.

I think that the roots absorb and hold water and maybe nutrients when they are watered. They do this in the velamen that surrounds the root. They then release the stored goodies as the plants need it. By the time everything is released from the velemen the orchid should need to be watered again i.e it's dried out. If it stays wet too long it needs to be repotted.

Maybe Ph5 works.


----------



## orcoholic (May 25, 2015)

gonewild said:


> When measuring the pH or ec of the water coming out of the pot it needs to be done using a small controlled amount of water. Then it somewhat represents what the media moisture contains. The measurement of water that comes out fast is of not much use.



Lance,

I can understand that, but then why do I want to know that. Shouldn't the medium dry out within a couple days of watering?


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

orcoholic said:


> Lance,
> 
> I can understand that, but then why do I want to know that. Shouldn't the medium dry out within a couple days of watering?



The media never actually dries out completely. it might look dry but it's not.
However, The reason you want to know the difference is because it tells you what is going on in the pot. If you add fertilizer at 100ppm every week and a month later your pour through shows a reading of 200ppm... then you know your plants are not consuming the nutrients as fast as you add them....then you know you can and should reduce the dose of your fertilizer.

Even though the surface water has dried out between waterings you still get a reference reading using the pour through. That is because when the water evaporates from the pot it leaves the nutrients behind in the form of soluble salts. Immediately when the pour through water hits these salts they dissolve into the water and will register on the ec (ppm) meter. 
You also get a glimpse of what the media pH is with the pour through. If you pour through water at pH7.0 and it comes out reading pH5.0 you know your media has a pH of less than 5.0.


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

Ray said:


> However, it is NOT the pH of the applied solutions that matter (unless they are too extreme, of course), it is the resulting pH of the rhizosphere (roots and medium) that's important. That can be more accurately assessed by measuring the pH of the pour-through.



Ray as orcoholic said this assumes that the orchid roots are ating like normal roots and extracting nutrients from the soil through CEC. But There is good argument to believe that orchid roots get their nutrients directly from the flowing water that contacts the roots. If that is true then the pH of the irrigation water may be more important than the pH of the media. And that may explain why you can have a pH4.0 in the media and the orchid plant is not suffering from it. 



> As to the pH in a S/H reservoir, this was an investigation that was done by several of us quite a few years ago. The pH varied drastically, based upon the time of day it was measured. If you measured a complete refresh with a pH=6.5 solution immediately, that's what you'll read. When we measured it after several hours of sunlight, and it had changed. Measuring it again after the plant was sitting in the dark overnight, when different biological processes had occurred, and the pH was different again, only to return to the prior level after more daylight. I do recall seeing 4.0, but frankly don't recall if that was the day-, or night reading.



How much of a factor was the daylight? Did you try keeping the plant dark to see if the pH still dropped? The pH drop may also be from microbes and not the orchid roots. Possible or not?


----------



## orcoholic (May 25, 2015)

gonewild said:


> The media never actually dries out completely. it might look dry but it's not.
> However, The reason you want to know the difference is because it tells you what is going on in the pot. If you add fertilizer at 100ppm every week and a month later your pour through shows a reading of 200ppm... then you know your plants are not consuming the nutrients as fast as you add them....then you know you can and should reduce the dose of your fertilizer.
> 
> Even though the surface water has dried out between waterings you still get a reference reading using the pour through. That is because when the water evaporates from the pot it leaves the nutrients behind in the form of soluble salts. Immediately when the pour through water hits these salts they dissolve into the water and will register on the ec (ppm) meter.
> You also get a glimpse of what the media pH is with the pour through. If you pour through water at pH7.0 and it comes out reading pH5.0 you know your media has a pH of less than 5.0.



Sounds sound. Thanks. 

But how do I know which nutrients aren't being used? - or does that even matter? And, don't all salts register on a TDS meter the same?

I would assume that if your plants are growing well there's no reason to look at the pour through. If they're not, suppose it is because of a lack of a particular element. When you take a look and see that there is excess fert in the pour through and you reduce it, you'll be further starving the orchid for that particular element.


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

orcoholic said:


> Sounds sound. Thanks.
> 
> But how do I know which nutrients aren't being used? - or does that even matter? And, don't all salts register on a TDS meter the same?



From the pour through test you don't know what nutrients are in the water you only know the total. The TDS meter measures all salts in the water combined.
It matters which nutrients are being used and you "assume" the fertilizer you are applying has the correct nutrients in the correct ratio so you can use the pour through to measure the use and strength of the complete nutrient supply. If you saw a huge difference in the pour through the only way to know which nutrients are being used more is to to a water test, and that is beyond the ability of most hobby growers. Experienced growers who monitor the ec and do a series of water tests learn that once they get the formula correct it remains the same for long term.



> I would assume that if your plants are growing well there's no reason to look at the pour through.



That's right. The only reason would be if you wanted to learn more about what's going on in the pot or if you want to grow the plants even better. OR if you want to get the same results by using less fertilizer you need to know if you are applying more than is needed already.



> If they're not, suppose it is because of a lack of a particular element. When you take a look and see that there is excess fert in the pour through and you reduce it, you'll be further starving the orchid for that particular element.



The lack of a particular element is diagnosed by the physical appearance of the plant or by chemical analysis. If you have a lack of an element you would not want to reduce the total fertilizer strength you would add in the missing element. But here it can get more complex (and simple at the same time). A problem caused by the lack of an element may not bebecause there is not enough of that element in the fertilizer. It might be caused by and excess of another element that caused an antagonistic reaction and the plant cant use the one element even though there is plenty available. So assume you have a fertilizer with plenty of every element in it and you are dosing heavily and you see a symptom of a nutrient shortage. If you did a pour through and the TDS was low you could simply increase the fertilizer dose and solve the problem (maybe). If the pour through showed high nutrient content then you might assume that there could be an antagonistic situation and reduce the fertilizer dose to see if that helped.

All the meter tests do is measure the total strength of all the salts and give you an idea of what to think and a clue in waht direction to move.


----------



## Paphman910 (May 25, 2015)

I never bothered with Klite! Cost of shipping is expensive and I don't want to be flagged because I am importing nitrate product into Canada!

In my case, I just use regular fertilizer and grow it warm year round. I use 25-10-10 and 20-20-20 and 15-30-15 alternating at times. I use about 1/4 teaspoon per gallon. I supplement with CalMag as well. No rocket science here!

Our water is so good that the pH is just about neutral and low in TDS for about 20ppm out of the tap!

I only grow multifloral paph species WELL because their requirements are met!

I am also interested in the geology of the habitat of the orchid species as it give you more insight into what type of soil they grow in.


----------



## Stone (May 25, 2015)

gonewild said:


> > pH 4.0 is very close to being considered a food preservative acidic level and lethal to most microbes so I doubt most orchids would flourish at that level
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Very generally though, I would say pH 7 is too low for acid loving orchids but probably good for your kovachiis and niveums?
> ...


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > I would not use that pH either. I'm just saying what he reported as the pH of the water coming off the branch where the Odonts grew.
> ...


----------



## Stone (May 25, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Mike, I know you don't like my unique theorys i suggest. But here's another one anyway. Just keep an open mind. (please don't ask me to show published research)
> ...


----------



## ChrisFL (May 25, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Falling from the sky where the air is absolutely clear of pollution it is pH 7.0.
> As it drips off of moss in the Peruvian cloud forest pH is 7.0.



This is absolutely incorrect, as atmospheric CO2 dissolves into rainwater instantaneously and makes rainwater slightly acidic.


----------



## ChrisFL (May 25, 2015)

The notion of neutral stem flow also strains credulity (I'm a paleoclimatologist that works on tropical hydroclimate).


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> This is absolutely incorrect, as atmospheric CO2 dissolves into rainwater instantaneously and makes rainwater slightly acidic.



So you are calling me a liar? :fight:

It's what my meter displayed. Granted it is a cheap meter and may read slightly acidic as 7.0 but that's the reading.


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> The notion of neutral stem flow also strains credulity (I'm a paleoclimatologist that works on tropical hydroclimate).



Geez........... I know how to take samples and read a meter.
(I'm a nobody that knows nothing I guess.)
:sob:
Rather hostile around now.


----------



## Stone (May 25, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean to high?
> ...


----------



## gonewild (May 25, 2015)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Yes
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (May 26, 2015)

Lots of interesting ideas. I see that the rhizosphere has been mentioned, we all know that plants detach adsorbed nutrients by liberating acid (mostly carbonic as far as I have understood, but even citric acid), but do we know that this also happens with orchids? Generally speaking, the orchids are devoid of hair-roots and even if paphiopedilum-roots are furry, I would not expect them to be very efficient as "nutrient collectors".

We know that the velamen has some unique properties with respect to nutrient adsorbtion and even paphs have a velamen......
Based on this, in my mind I have severe difficulties in accepting that nutrients that are adsorbed on/in the aggregates of the compost will be available to the plant unless there is a direct contact between roots and the adsorbtion site. This makes the nutrients in solution even more important. That is of course where the pH enters the scene, the solubility of different nutrients are dependent on the pH. But not only, there are a lot of chemical compounds that complexes with the nutrients and keep them in solution even at pH that is not favourable. Some potent and commonly found are citric acid and humates/fulvic acid. And then, there are those other synthetic complexants like EDTA that might- or might not - complex to such a degrree that the nutrients (normally Fe and Mn) get inacessible to the plants.

I have said this before and will repeat it here, most orchids are in nature found in locations that are devoid of nutrients. In order to grow and live in these environments, the plants have had to develop strategies making them able to make use of even very low amounts of nutrients.
If one or another nutrient (micro) is missing, then addition of more fertiliser helps - up to a point. But most of that increase in nutrient supply is wasted.
It is not straight forward to tell what nutrients are the limiting, but if one studies the local geology of the regions where the paphs are found, some indications can be found. E.g. for many of the islands of the indonesian archipelago, the soil is ultramafic with sometimes large amounts orf iron and manganese. Sometimes even nickel. For paphs from this region it is not unlikely that they can tolerate or even demand higher levels of these elements than does plants originating elsewhere.

Just my 2c


----------



## gonewild (May 26, 2015)

Bjorn said:


> Lots of interesting ideas. I see that the rhizosphere has been mentioned, we all know that plants detach adsorbed nutrients by liberating acid (mostly carbonic as far as I have understood, but even citric acid), but do we know that this also happens with orchids? Generally speaking, the orchids are devoid of hair-roots and even if paphiopedilum-roots are furry, I would not expect them to be very efficient as "nutrient collectors".



Exactly. Add also the fact that a high percent of the orchid root system is not in direct contact with substrate/media that might be holding bound nutrients. Orchid roots that are attached tyo a tree limb have maybe only 1/3 of their surface in contact with a solid surface while the other 2/3 are surrounded by open space. The open space is where flowing water will hit the roots. Orchids are highly evolved plants and it makes no sense that their roots would evolve to be only 30% effective at nutrient sourcing.



> We know that the velamen has some unique properties with respect to nutrient adsorbtion and even paphs have a velamen......
> Based on this, in my mind I have severe difficulties in accepting that nutrients that are adsorbed on/in the aggregates of the compost will be available to the plant unless there is a direct contact between roots and the adsorbtion site. This makes the nutrients in solution even more important. That is of course where the pH enters the scene, the solubility of different nutrients are dependent on the pH. But not only, there are a lot of chemical compounds that complexes with the nutrients and keep them in solution even at pH that is not favourable. Some potent and commonly found are citric acid and humates/fulvic acid. And then, there are those other synthetic complexants like EDTA that might- or might not - complex to such a degrree that the nutrients (normally Fe and Mn) get inacessible to the plants.



Also there is no reason to assume that the pH must be constant. In Nature pH fluctuates often. Ph of moist substrate may be very acidic or basic and then along comes the rain and brings a more neutral pH water flow. In the majority of orchid habitats there are nightly waterflows.



> I have said this before and will repeat it here, most orchids are in nature found in locations that are devoid of nutrients. In order to grow and live in these environments, the plants have had to develop strategies making them able to make use of even very low amounts of nutrients.
> If one or another nutrient (micro) is missing, then addition of more fertiliser helps - up to a point. But most of that increase in nutrient supply is wasted.
> It is not straight forward to tell what nutrients are the limiting, but if one studies the local geology of the regions where the paphs are found, some indications can be found. E.g. for many of the islands of the indonesian archipelago, the soil is ultramafic with sometimes large amounts orf iron and manganese. Sometimes even nickel. For paphs from this region it is not unlikely that they can tolerate or even demand higher levels of these elements than does plants originating elsewhere.



There is also an assumption that orchid roots have evolved to function like other roots in absorbing nutrients in the from salts. The orchid habitats are low in nutrients in the elemental salt form. Not many nitrates flowing around in water or stuck to organic matter. That's where living organisms as a nutrient supply enter the real picture. The lichens , mosses, bacterias all produce complex excretions that the orchid roots have evolved to collect and process into nutrients for the plants. Our salt based fertilizers are simply a substitute nutrient supply that the orchids can survive on in the absence of the complex compounds from bio organisms (amino acids?).
I'll use that as an possible reason why one grower has great results using brand X fertilizer and another grower has less good or poor results. The good results are because the first grower's environment is supporting better micro fauna. And absolutely pH dictates what microbes can colonize the root system. 



> Just my 2c



I'm not thinking my idea is going to get a 2c value here.


----------



## Ray (May 26, 2015)

Bjorn said:


> I have said this before and will repeat it here, most orchids are in nature found in locations that are devoid of nutrients. In order to grow and live in these environments, the plants have had to develop strategies making them able to make use of even very low amounts of nutrients.
> 
> If one or another nutrient (micro) is missing, then addition of more fertiliser helps - up to a point. But most of that increase in nutrient supply is wasted.
> It is not straight forward to tell what nutrients are the limiting, but if one studies the local geology of the regions where the paphs are found, some indications can be found. E.g. for many of the islands of the indonesian archipelago, the soil is ultramafic with sometimes large amounts orf iron and manganese. Sometimes even nickel. For paphs from this region it is not unlikely that they can tolerate or even demand higher levels of these elements than does plants originating elsewhere.


Thank you Bjorn. Those are two paragraphs I can agree with....

This may seem rude to some participants, so I'll apologize in advance... 

All of these comments are great _theories_, but that's all they are, as none of us really has much of an idea of what is actually going on when it comes to orchids nutrition.

The mere fact that some have success doing what others fail with suggests that "plant nutrition" is more than just "fertilizer formula".


----------



## tomkalina (May 26, 2015)

There's much more to growing than plant nutrition. You can have a theoretically perfect fertilizer formula but unless you can provide the correct amount of light, good water quality, suitable temperatures, good air movement, good humidity, suitable mix, etc., while controlling diseases and insects - the least controlled variables will limited your plant's ability to thrive.


----------



## TyroneGenade (May 26, 2015)

gonewild said:


> That's where living organisms as a nutrient supply enter the real picture. The lichens , mosses, bacterias all produce complex excretions that the orchid roots have evolved to collect and process into nutrients for the plants. Our salt based fertilizers are simply a substitute nutrient supply that the orchids can survive on in the absence of the complex compounds from bio organisms (amino acids?).



Interestingly, one of the Catts I got last year was really struggling. Its roots had rotted, new growths were not getting anywhere and it looked like the end was drawing nigh... I'm a big believer in moss so I got a clump of live moss (regular garden variety) from outside and wrapped it around the base of the plant and stuck it back into S/H with the K-lite. It didn't take long for new growths and roots to emerge. I now have 3 lead growths on this plant and the growths look to be growing larger than their predecessors. 

So far, S/H and K-lite is working well for my 3 experimental Catts. 

I don't think there is anything wrong with the fertilizer in general, only that some plants might want a little more or less under different conditions. My problems might have more to do with the S/H than the fertilizer.

I'm going to keep using the K-lite.


----------



## papheteer (May 26, 2015)

Carper said:


> At what strength do you feed at and do you mix with the Kelp?
> 
> Gary
> UK



never more than 1/8 tsp per gallon of water. I use kelp with fulvic and humic acids.


----------



## Stone (May 26, 2015)

Bjorn said:


> > Generally speaking, the orchids are devoid of hair-roots and even if paphiopedilum-roots are furry, I would not expect them to be very efficient as "nutrient collectors".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (May 26, 2015)

gonewild said:


> > Not many nitrates flowing around in water or stuck to organic matter. That's where living organisms as a nutrient supply enter the real picture. The lichens , mosses, bacterias all produce complex excretions that the orchid roots have evolved to collect and process into nutrients for the plants.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (May 26, 2015)

Ray said:


> > All of these comments are great _theories_, but that's all they are, as none of us really has much of an idea of what is actually going on when it comes to orchids nutrition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (May 26, 2015)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > And where do think the mosses and lichens nutrients come from?
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (May 27, 2015)

Stone said:


> Bjorn, I think the hairs on paph roots are exactly where nutrients are taken up (at least some) And on the contrary, they are supremely efficient at nutrient uptake. That is why an orchid can survive with just 2 live roots where any other plant would die.


Agree on that, BUT unless they touch, or are wetted by water containing nutrients, they will not absorb it.




Stone said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here. Obviously if the roots (of any plant) are not in contact with a substrate particle it is impossible for the root to take up anything from that particular site. (Unless water liberates the nutrient and carries it to the root - which happens constantly)


If the CEC is low, yes it happens, except for the adsorbed species. In my opinion, the whole concept of CEC gets questionable for orchids. While regular plants have lots of fine hair roots that can get to and exchange adsorbed cations by manipulating the pH in the rhizosphere, orchids do not have that fine web of hair-roots (except for the fur on the paphs) So if "the next" soil-particle has a lot of cations (nutrients) adsorbed on it, it will not be available for the orchid.
So when you fertilise, what you do is that you saturate the velamen with nutrients, and adds to any CEC-sites in the aggregates. At the next watering (without fertiliser) the surplus (not adsorbed) nutrients get flushed out of the system, perhaps some of it is adsorbed by the roots, and the roots are gradually deprived of nutrients as they are consumed by the plant, waiting for the next dose of fertiliser.
You might notice that my hypothesis is that the velamen acts as the main source of CEC for orchids. And it has to be refilled. Best is to refill with a constant but low concentration of the right nutrients. The bonding of the cations to the CEC-sites is pH dependent. At low pH the cations are more loosely bound than at higher pH. For some substrates it has previously been speculated if the CEC was so high that they adsorbed so much (notably K and CHC) that they over time actually became "poisonous" for the roots. Questionable but perhaps, at higher pH (>7?) it might?

Another thing, if it is true that the velamen is the prime source of CEC, then, once the active sites are occupied, further increase in fertiliser concentration should not give much effect, except for the detrimental effect that high salts concentration has. In my mind, most fertilisation that is going on is a waste of nutrients:evil:
I tend to agree with you Mike that the proportions are more important than we normally think of. The problem is of course that in many cases, the opimal composition for one species might not be so optimal for another one




Stone said:


> Confused. More important than what?


than the adsorbed cations. Once you have flushed out the fertiliser solution, there is not much available for the orchids (perhaps unless you start water with slightly acid water that liberates cations from the CEC-sites)


----------



## Stone (May 27, 2015)

gonewild said:


> > The atmosphere.
> 
> 
> In part yes and also a lot from the leachates from their neighbours and leaves of the tree they grow on.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (May 27, 2015)

Stone said:


> You are missinterperating the data. These figures are for stemflow only not total nutrient to the hectare. Those numbers would probably be 10 times that number



Doesn't


> With: (kg/ha)


 mean kilograms per hectare?


----------



## ChrisFL (May 27, 2015)

gonewild said:


> So you are calling me a liar? :fight:
> 
> It's what my meter displayed. Granted it is a cheap meter and may read slightly acidic as 7.0 but that's the reading.



No, I'm simply stating a fact, that rainwater on this planet, from this atmosphere, is not neutral. Further, it is difficult for typical pH meters/electrodes to measure the pH of rainwater because it lacks enough conductive ions to work correctly. So, no, it is not likely you got an accurate reading.


----------



## ChrisFL (May 27, 2015)

gonewild said:


> The atmosphere.



As in, gaseous form??


----------



## myxodex (May 27, 2015)

These fertiliser threads here on ST are just great. They make me think of a form of emergent behaviour,
the chaotically repeating patterns all mixed up with an utterly unpredictable topic evolution. I'm really enjoying this one, thanks for the posts and ideas.

@ Bjorn, I'm liking your ideas, just one quibble. The CEC substrates will, as I guess you are aware, have very different H+ vs other cation affinities and hence variation of behaviour with pH, just look at the different zeolites. If you are feeding with a NH4/NO3 mixed N fert, then the pH goes through a little cycle over a few days, acidification followed by recovery back to where it started ... or not, depending on the ratio. OK this study was done on potted roses, not orchids, but I think the same mechanism is going on in our orchid pots if we use NH4 & NO3. I think CEC in the medium can be useful as a sort of cation buffer (including pH) if you "load it" with a counterion of choice before use, Antec used Mg/Ca with CHC and I simply soak my sphag in a few changes of hard water (120 ppm Ca). I'm thinking that variations in pH will be enough to cycle cations on and off CEC substrates, not to mention organic acids produced by microbes in the medium which will help mobilise cations by competitive chelation. I take your point about K, it will most likely displace most other cations except possibly NH4, but it will also depend on the heterogeneity of binding sites in the CEC that you use. Synthetic CEC materials are often fairly homogenous, natural ones not so much.

Aside from short period fluctuation in pH, sometimes there is long term drift in pH over the potting cycle, and it is this that I've measured and it caused me problems. A few years ago someone posted links to the articles by Bill Argo on pH that I found very helpful so I'll repost the links here just in the unlikely case there is anyone left here who has either not yet read them or isn't aware of the basic issues:

http://staugorchidsociety.org/PDF/IPAPlantNutrition.pdf
http://staugorchidsociety.org/PDF/IPAWaterQuality.pdf
http://staugorchidsociety.org/PDF/IPAFertilizers.pdf
http://staugorchidsociety.org/PDF/IPASubstrates.pdf
http://staugorchidsociety.org/PDF/IPAFinal.pdf

There is just one thing with the NH4/NO3 story that I'm uncomfortable with and that is the role of the microbial population. When I was going through horticultural articles on acidification by NH4, one study dismissed any significant contribution by the microbial population. They were using potted plants in loam. Agricultural studies on the uptake of SO4 and NH4 by crop plants have measured the partitioning of these ions into the microbial population and plants. The plants got most of the NH4 and SO4 unless they added some carbohydrate source to the soil, straw, molasses it didn't matter, add carbs and the microbial population got most of NH4 and SO4. When I had progressive acidification problems I was using a bark that degraded quite fast. I was also using a fertiliser that was about 50% NH4 (with rain water... yeah ... stupido !... slaps head). The pH was actually a little lower in the pot with few roots. If we are growing in an organic medium I'm convinced the microbial population can have a big effect on pH changes with NH4 ... microbes have membranes too and they also give out H+ when they take up NH4. I switched to a high NO3 fert and the bark degradation was much slower and acidification stopped being a big problem. I am cautious about agricultural studies but I think some basic mechanisms are general enough to have relevance.

Sooner or later, when I'm reading through these fert threads, my mind comes up with Paph. wentworthianum and why nobody can grow this one? Is it just impossible because of some very specific mycorrhizal association that cannot be transplanted or is there some simple fix, just so counterintuitive or unlikely that no one has thought of it or dared to try? Like Cymbidium suave for example that needs a pH of 4.5 to be happy ! http://staugorchidsociety.org/PDF/ArepHChecksNecessarybyHarryMcElroy.pdf


----------



## gonewild (May 27, 2015)

Stone said:


> *Conclusion....take your chance with mycos and microbes or forget them and feed enough so the orchid thrives.



I'm not suggesting that anyone should stop using fertilizer and depend on the living organisms. I'm simply suggesting that orchids have evolved to rely in nature on the organisms to provide nutrients in forms other than dissolved salts. That does not mean they can not use dissolved salts when available.
If what I am suggesting is correct then the known measured amounts of nutrients in the environment is not what will reveal the correct nutrients an orchid needs. That is because the organism supplied nutrient compounds may not be readily dissolved in stemflow water. 

You choose to believe that science has the final answer about plant nutrition and nothing unknown can exist and nothing new can be discovered. I choose to look at new ideas and not trust in the written word.
The improved results being obtained with the use of seaweed additions to fertilizer extract just presents a reason to look past the printed text books.

Somehow the trial of using low K with K-lite has evolved into using very low levels of N by reducing the dose to extremely lower levels. The potassium level effect evaluation has been spoiled by too many people making a drastic change in the over dose of nutrients. When the K-lite formula was created it was based on applying a total dose of 100ppm N. Potassium was reduced based on 100ppm and that would still provide ample potassium at 10ppm. But now people are using 10ppm of N and that reduces the available potassium to basically nothing. In the beginning K-lite users reported fantastic growth results. THEN people started using low doses and now we see a lot of K-lite failures. That is not a test of lowering the potassium it is proof that plants need some potassium or they suffer. As far as I can see most or all of the poor results from K-lite are from low dose use at 25ppm or less then the grower switches back to their old fertilizer at 5 times the N dose and things improve. It has nothing to do with the potassium ratio but does have everything to do with lack of nutrients.

The fact that some K-lite users are having great results using low dosage amounts indicates that within their growing environment there is an additional source of nutrients the orchids are benefiting from. I suggest that this benefit is coming from living organisms. And I suggest it is this type of nutrient supply that orchids get nutrients from in Nature and not solely from dissolved salts in the stemflow. Based on this suggestion a grower that can create an environment that fosters the beneficial organisms will grow bigger and better orchids and be able to use less chemical fertilizer. 
Salt based fertilizer is our only option until we learn the secrets that remain hidden. 

I think this thread is about results of using K-lite? A lot of people have been disappointed with it because why? Is it the low potassium or because they have used to low of a dosage application and generally starved the plants?
To make a fair evaluation of a low potassium fertilizer (K-lite) you must supply the nitrogen at the same rate as you did with the previous fertilizer you are comparing to.


----------



## gonewild (May 27, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> No, I'm simply stating a fact, that rainwater on this planet, from this atmosphere, is not neutral. Further, it is difficult for typical pH meters/electrodes to measure the pH of rainwater because it lacks enough conductive ions to work correctly. So, no, it is not likely you got an accurate reading.



Just kidding about the liar part.. 
My pH meter does not give lab accuracy but it most likely represents the accuracy that 100% of orchids growers get on their meters. I'm talking horticulture accuracy not chemistry accuracy.

I gave you the readings I got. Now consider where I took the readings was in possibly the cleanest atmospheric place on earth. In a pristine forest far from any industry or pollution, in an area with little smoke from fires. At an elevation where I was literally in a cloud on the eastern slope of the Andes. The rain did not have far to fall to be influenced by atmospheric contaminants. Maybe the pH was not in reality 7.0 based on scientific calibration but it was pure rainwater very close to neutral pH and I was surrounded by orchids in the trees.


----------



## gonewild (May 27, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> As in, gaseous form??



Yes. (And/or from bacteria) 
That is where discoveries with lichens is leading. Taking gases from the atmosphere and excreting unique complex chemical compounds. It's these unknown compounds that I suggest orchids have evolved to use as a nutrient source.


----------



## orcoholic (May 27, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Somehow the trial of using low K with K-lite has evolved into using very low levels of N by reducing the dose to extremely lower levels.



Lance,

I think you're spot on regarding the level reported being used.

At 100ppmN K-lite is probably okay. At 10ppmN, there probably is no fertilizer that works well. At 10ppmN I think the K level is less than one ppm, as is the P. I wonder how little the micros are at that level.

I just don't get the logic of going to 10ppmN? As long as the roots don't burn, why not use more? Cost can't be factor. The cost of using 100ppmN vs. 10ppmN is probably less than a coupe cents per gallon.


----------



## cnycharles (May 27, 2015)

Elements and such are also in the evaporated seawater fog that comes off of the ocean in some places. Some study a little while back showed that colliding sea currents were creating fog which was going up the mountains and on the plants. AnyWhere water evaporates other studies have shown that bacteria can be picked up from water bodies and dispersed everywhere so the same water could have nutrients carried in it. Electrical storms also release nutrients into rainwater which can be another source of food


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gonewild (May 27, 2015)

cnycharles said:


> Elements and such are also in the evaporated seawater fog that comes off of the ocean in some places. Some study a little while back showed that colliding sea currents were creating fog which was going up the mountains and on the plants. AnyWhere water evaporates other studies have shown that bacteria can be picked up from water bodies and dispersed everywhere so the same water could have nutrients carried in it. Electrical storms also release nutrients into rainwater which can be another source of food



Yes all those sources add up. However they still don't add up to the amount of nutrients it takes to keep orchids growing in a greenhouse. The environmental salt nutrients that show up in research just are not in high enough concentration in Nature at the points orchids grow. All the research focuses on dissolved elements flowing in. Someone needs to look at other compounds that the highly specialized orchid root may have evolved to acquire nutrients from.

In regards to nutrients coming from the sea it would not be likely here on the eastern slope of the Andes.... it's a really long way to the sea. But there is plenty of electric storms. I guess I'm just adding in a possible reason orchid roots are different from other plants and a possible reason that seaweed and it's strange compounds has such a positive effect.


----------



## naoki (May 27, 2015)

ST fertilizer talk is pretty crazy (in a good way), and I learn a lot of different perspectives!

There are probably several ways to approach plant nutrients, and I think Mike's hypothesis about symbiotic (low nutrients) vs asymbiotic (high dose) culture is pretty interesting. It generally known that under high nutrient availability (especially P), plants tend to get rid of mycorrhizae (because providing carbon to the fungi becomes too costly compared to the nutrient uptake benefit). This is probably a big reason why imitating the nature doesn't mean the best for cultivated plants. I personally think that Bjorn style culture is very interesting: lots of water, low nutrients, generally bigger growing area than the traditional pot-bound method.

I used to think mycorrhizae isn't dominant in orchid culture, but there are several papers isolating the mycorrhizae from cultivated Paphs. Here is an example:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=22189#.VWZTi2DuVDc

Also, people here talk about "microbes" in speculative manners. Here is some interesting paper about orchid endophytes:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile...chid_Roots/links/0fcfd509535db6a465000000.pdf

But I don't agree that plant nutrients is just fertilizer formulation (from Ray and Mike's discussion). Mike is probably exaggerating it since the book Mike recommended has lots of information about the topic (mineral transport between root and outside, transport within plants, rhizosphere including microbes, fluctuation in root environment etc).

For myxodex's point about long-term acidification, this paper has interesting data (we talked about it frequently):
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/46/7/1022.full.pdf

Their interpretation is that the root excrete (rather than decay of media) is the main cause of long-term acidification. There could be other ways to interpret the data, and it would be interesting to see what you think.


----------



## Stone (May 27, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Doesn't mean kilograms per hectare?



Yes,.... running down the tree stem.

Kg/ha total yearly deposition is N 12.1, P 1.46, K 33.0


----------



## gonewild (May 27, 2015)

Stone said:


> Yes,.... running down the tree stem.
> 
> Kg/ha total yearly deposition is N 12.1, P 1.46, K 33.0



Those aren't the same numbers you gave above?
In any case 12.1 kg/ha of nitrogen is not enough nutrients to feed the forest so there has to be a different supply.


----------



## paphioboy (May 27, 2015)

naoki said:


> ST fertilizer talk is pretty crazy (in a good way)...




Can't agree more!  That's why only sheep pellets for me..


----------



## gonewild (May 27, 2015)

paphioboy said:


> Can't agree more!  That's why only sheep pellets for me..



Do you apply them as a foliar spray?


----------



## Stone (May 27, 2015)

naoki said:


> > But I don't agree that plant nutrients is just fertilizer formulation (from Ray and Mike's discussion). Mike is probably exaggerating it since the book Mike recommended has lots of information about the topic (mineral transport between root and outside, transport within plants, rhizosphere including microbes, fluctuation in root environment etc).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (May 27, 2015)

paphioboy said:


> Can't agree more!  That's why only sheep pellets for me..



That may not be as silly as it sounds. In the end we may discover that a plant based organic fertilizer formula is the best possible way to feed paphs.
It is what they have evolved with. But such a fertilizer could never be available commercially.


----------



## Stone (May 27, 2015)

gonewild said:


> > Those are not the same numbvers as above
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (May 28, 2015)

What a thread!:rollhappy:Full of inspiring viewpoints (is that a word?) And people defending their ideas fiercly!:fight:
Joke aside, lots of ideas that migth amalgamate into something that brings us forward. This is what I love ST for!
Personally I do it my way, make my changes, take a chance and maintain my strategy for sufficiently long time to be able to judge if its a good idea or not. Right now, I am on the lean track (60ppmTDS, 10ppmN). Am a bit worried about those low amounts of fertiliser, after all the plants are in small pots (Naoki I am using normal pots mostly-partly due to space, its pretty packed here in the greenhouse) With restricted root mass. That is why I feel that lots of fertilised water is necessary. New supply continously - just like in nature. And high humidity. I have expressed a concern about my mottled leaved paphs "climbing" in another thread some time ago, idealy the roots appearing above ground should not dry out but get into the soil below.That means airial roots of perhaps 2-3cm (1inch) quite an achievement for a paph-root! Its difficult to keep conditions like that, but daily spraying(soaking) and dense populations seems to help. No, this is a side-track 
So far my lean diet seems to work fine, but I believe I see new leaves getting smaller than their predecessors and this worries me......And then it turns out that they are bigger. Have to keep calm and observe. I'll let you know if the 10ppm N approach does not work.


----------



## gonewild (May 28, 2015)

Stone said:


> Man! The the OLD figures are JUST for the stem flow!



Then present figures expressed in something that relates to the numbers. Explain how much nutrients are in the stem flow based on the numbers you gave as kg/ha. How much N is flowing down a single tree?



> The new figures are TOTAL deposition. (trees only take up a fraction of a hectare)



Is stem flow limited to trees? (NO). Actually the stem flow represents the total canopy surface which in most tropical forests is complete coverage of the hectare.



> Again those figures DO NOT ''feed'' the forest. Trees get thir nutrients from the soil, bring up to their leaves and what leaches out is the main source of nutrients for the above ground biomass)



Where does the soil get the nutrients to grow a forest and maintain it?
Most tropical forest soils do not have a nutrient balance that will support a forest. I'll be happy to share a recent soil analysis I just had done of the soil that underlies one of the most bio diverse forests on the planet. If anyone wants to see it



> (added to the other sources of course - rain, ocean aersols blah blah)



Rain and ocean aersols do not carry enough nutrients to grow a lush tropical forest even when combined with what the decay can recycle. However you nailed it with the "blah blah" because blah and blah are the living organisms that I have been talking about.



> I really cannot for the life of me undersand why you can't see that all above ground nutrients caome from the well known sources mentioned a million times.



Because they don't. If you really can't understand why someone like me would question the finality of knowledge then you must believe the Earth is flat and Ceasar is great.



> Apart from some N, There cannot possibly be any other source!



Not possible? :rollhappy: 



> Maybe epiphytes ''suck'' nutrients from the tree's sap? That would make them parasites



Maybe epiphytes absorb nutrients from all available sources including living organisms. That would make them epiphytes.


----------



## gonewild (May 28, 2015)

Stone said:


> But such a fertilizer could never be available commercially.



Why not?


----------



## gonewild (May 28, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> This is absolutely incorrect, as atmospheric CO2 dissolves into rainwater instantaneously and makes rainwater slightly acidic.



It's raining really hard this morning, probably about 4" per hour. I got a bright idea to go measure the pH of the rain here not in the forest. My bucket filled in a few seconds from water off our roof. I got wet, now I'm cold, but here is my proof oke:


----------



## TyroneGenade (May 28, 2015)

Well, Lance, it is hard to argue with the numbers. Can you, for reference sake, take the pH of milk (6.4--6.8) or coffee (black, pH 5). Pure water with CO2 should be acidic, as low as 4 under some circumstances. If the pH of your milk and coffee correspond with the ideal values then you have a stronger case.

In any case, I'm going to start inoculating my S/H pots with moss.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (May 28, 2015)

I think the device might be off. 
As mentioned earlier by other member, rainwater cannot be just pure water as carbon dioxide in the air gets mixed with rainwater and this is a known fact. Rainwater is slightly acidic (5.6) in the "pure" form.


----------



## gonewild (May 28, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> Well, Lance, it is hard to argue with the numbers. Can you, for reference sake, take the pH of milk (6.4--6.8) or coffee (black, pH 5). Pure water with CO2 should be acidic, as low as 4 under some circumstances. If the pH of your milk and coffee correspond with the ideal values then you have a stronger case.
> 
> In any case, I'm going to start inoculating my S/H pots with moss.



We dont have milk. Our coffees here have wide pH range, we played testeing them a few years ago. I tested a soil sample a couple weeks ago and the pH was really low at 4.4 to 4.7. Then I used a little drop test and the pH read 6.5 and that i did not believe to be correct. So I sent a sample to the lab for analysis and the pH cam back 4.9. So my meter is fairly close I expect.

I'm not trying to prove rainwater is always neutral, just sharing some results I observe here. Rainwater that comes out of our tanks has a lower pH than falling rain. The point I'm trying to make is that reality is not ever consistent and just because books teach one thing does not always make it factual everywhere always. I've also measured fresh rainwater here that was acidic, it depends on the atmosphere at the time. I don't think it really matters as far as plants are concerned because it does become acidic quickly. But what it does show is that pH probably in not always stable in the plants environment and especially for epiphytes where one moment they are steeping in moss soup and the next moment they are drenched with fresh water. 
The soil out in out garden has a very big low pH problem...yesterday... this morning it has rained probably 5 inches and I bet the soil pH is not very acidic today.... tomorrow it will be acidic again. That flux probably has little effect on a tomato plant with it's roots growing in clay. But the orchid with exposed roots surrounded by moss and lichen will have a big pH swing naturally. That's a much different environment than we provide with our calculated artificial environments. Who knows... maybe orchids only take in nutrients when the rain water changes the pH level up or down? If we don't look at different possibilities we will never know.


----------



## gonewild (May 28, 2015)

Happypaphy7 said:


> I think the device might be off.
> As mentioned earlier by other member, rainwater cannot be just pure water as carbon dioxide in the air gets mixed with rainwater and this is a known fact. Rainwater is slightly acidic (5.6) in the "pure" form.



OK


----------



## TyroneGenade (May 28, 2015)

Lance, what detergents (floor cleaners, soaps, shampoo etc...) do you have? All of these have defined pH values. Also, if you have vinegar you can measure that. It should be 2.4. If you have bicarbonate of soda, make a saturated solution and measure that. It should be about 8.3. Ph meters need regular calibration as they drift terribly. Wine and beer should be at pH 4.

Generally, running pure water has a pH close to 7. Only when it is left to stand does enough CO2 dissolve into it to lower the pH a lot. CO2 isn't very soluble in water and is easily driven off by agitation. The reading close to 7 is expected for unpolluted rain water.


----------



## gonewild (May 28, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> The reading close to 7 is expected for unpolluted rain water.



My reading is close to 7! I'm not saying all rain water is exactly 7.
I simply said I measured rainwater hitting wild orchid plants in the cloud forest here where the air is absolutely as clean as can be and it measured 7.

The fact that my meter reading came close to the pH the lab sent back is close enough for me. 
No offense to you but I'm getting tired of being told I can't prove the things I say, so I think I'll stop sharing now.


----------



## abax (May 28, 2015)

Lance, I take the ph of our rainwater regularly and it's
almost always 7. It's 7 in my rain barrel and 7 if I take
a reading with fresh caught rain. I don't use a meter. I
take it to a water tester with a computer thingy to measure the Ph. I also use a color test kit at home from
time to time. The color test kit isn't as accurate as the
analysis via computer, but it close enough to make very
little difference.

BTW, most of the time I don't understand a damn thing
any of you chemists are saying. It might be very nice
if the technical talk is a bit toned down for us non-chemists.


----------



## gonewild (May 29, 2015)

abax said:


> Lance, I take the ph of our rainwater regularly and it's
> almost always 7. It's 7 in my rain barrel and 7 if I take
> a reading with fresh caught rain. I don't use a meter. I
> take it to a water tester with a computer thingy to measure the Ph. I also use a color test kit at home from
> ...



Thanks! That is good to know. I think you make a good point when you say it's close enough to make very little difference.

I'm not a chemist. I just know about plant nutrition. If I write something you don't understand please ask me to explain it in simpler words, I'll be happy to. Most of what I write I have to pump it up so the scientists can understand.... but they still don't


----------



## Happypaphy7 (May 29, 2015)

Ok, I'm sure that last comment is meant to be a joke, but still I find it rather ridiculous because it comes off as highly arrogant and self-righteous. 

First off, even scientists can have different opinions on the same subject.
Two, your overgeneralization, assumptions based on nothing or poor or wrong info have no place in science, and on public forum like this, it only clutter up valuable space and may mislead or waste time of others who may not know better.

I'm out. 

Have fun talking!


----------



## gonewild (May 29, 2015)

Happypaphy7 said:


> Ok, I'm sure that last comment is meant to be a joke, but still I find it rather ridiculous because it comes off as highly arrogant and self-righteous.
> 
> First off, even scientists can have different opinions on the same subject.
> Two, your overgeneralization, assumptions based on nothing or poor or wrong info have no place in science, and on public forum like this, it only clutter up valuable space and may mislead or waste time of others who may not know better.
> ...



I don't know what to say.
But your direct public personal attack on my character is more than a little rude.


----------



## TyroneGenade (May 29, 2015)

gonewild said:


> No offense to you but I'm getting tired of being told I can't prove the things I say, so I think I'll stop sharing now.



Oh, no, I believe you! But we scientists have high standards of proof---or at least we used to. 

@ Happypaphy7: Yes, different scientists can have varying opinions on the same subject. This is because we all have our own biases (what we now called a "world view") by which we interpret data. This is issue of bias is very important to keep in mind. It would save a lot of "scientists" from rising to notoriety on RetractionWatch.com. The BIGGER issue however is that we are all experts in our own little fields and when we meander out into other domains of knowledge we make fools of ourselves.

I think Lance has substantiated is point about the pH of rain water. And from the parallel thread daring low ppm doses to present their plants we can see that Rick the Environmental Toxicologist's point about pollution killing off moss etc... is valid. Rick H's green house is a veritable jungle. I think Lance's point about encouraging symbiosis by moderate environmentally-friendly feeding to get great plants or using high feeding to get great plants but then battle with repotting, root rot etc... is valid and needs closer experimental scrutiny. Something is happening when an orchid grows on a tree or among moss. The Oncidium I hung in a tree in bark died, but the one I fixed to bark of the same tree is growing well back at my parent's place in South Africa. 

My own experience with K-lite (which is now about 18 months) is that my plants are growing well (except for one spicerianum) and it works. But, this means little in the great scheme of things as my cultural conditions are so much different. There is little control for cultural conditions in this thread. If we insist on comparing apples and oranges then we are just going to end-up having silly arguments.

If you want to prove K-lite is worthless, well then setup a green house and feed one side "regular fertilizer" and the other K-lite at the recommended dose and tell us what happens. From the run-off data, it seems Nature's laboratory seems to favor a K-light approach.


----------



## Stone (May 30, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> > From the run-off data, it seems Nature's laboratory seems to favor a K-light approach.
> 
> 
> 
> And so what on earth does that mean?


----------



## rcb (May 31, 2015)

I gave up on K-lite, switched back to MSU. When I went back to MSU, the issues I was seeing went away. The issues where yellowing and leaf drop, mainly on my Cattleyas. 

I have a mixed collection, including a few Paphs and Phrags.
I grow the vast majority of the potted plants in inorganic media. Not S/H. Some do have sheet moss lining the top of the potting media.
My plants are fully exposed to the weather.
I do not fungicide or pesticide, with the exception of spot spraying spikes for thrips when necessary. When I went this route, I did have to periodically spot spray for fungus, eventually the plants became robust enough I no longer had to.
My water is either rain water, with a TDS of 6-8, or RO water with a TDS of 60-70 ( yes I know but that's the best I can get), or a blend.
I fertilizer now with MSU at just under a 1/2 tsp per gallon. How often depends on my work schedule and how rainy we are.
This seems to work the best for me in my conditions.

The issues I saw under K lite where the leaf yellowing, and it appeared reduced cold tolerance. Also I Grow Hoyas, and saw the same things.

I will say that when I first started using K lite, it did appear to have much better blooming. But after some time, that was offset by the plants not growing as well.


----------



## naoki (Jun 1, 2015)

Stone said:


> But naoki, Why do hydroponic tomato setups out-perform grown grown?
> Nutrients are determined on the optimal formulas.
> I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that there must exist an optimum fertilizer formula for any plant. That does not mean we know what it is.



Sorry for a late reply. That's an interesting point. I don't know much about hydroponics, but there could be an additional advantage that plants are not limited by water and they can open the stomata freely? As you do, I would like to believe that "optimum" nutrients could be possible (for a given condition). Plants have evolved to deal with the sessile life, and I wouldn't underestimate the phenotypic plasticity (i.e. they can change, adjust their morphology/physiology to get best out of the given environment).

How about heterotrophic orchids (not photosynthetic)? Do we think that if we can provide the optimum fertilizer, can we grow them? It is partly true because some heterotrophic orchids can be grown in aseptic condition. But once you get them out from the flask, it becomes more complex.

In the case of hydroponics, you can control the rhizosphere well. But with orchids, we need to deal with the ever-changing rhizosphere: root:media ratio changes with the growth, organic media could decay, even in organic media, roots excretes can change the pH (in addition to changes in microbe fauna). So even if we get the optimum fertilization scheme for a particular species, it may not remain optimum for over long time (or it may not be optimum for different types of media). But in reality, plants probably have a wide range of optima (due to the plasticity).

Actually, I forgot the original content (I think that it was something to do with fertilizer formula is not the only factor for plant nutrition), and I'm not sure what I'm trying to say... 



Stone said:


> I have had many bush collected plants which looked like they have been really struggling to survive (short weak growths hardly capable of producing a flower) but have later exploded into vigorous growth in cultivation.



Some wild plants grown under cultivation can show dramatically different morphology, too. They are released from the biological competition. Some plants can increase the size 10x under the cultivation. But in nature, making such big leaves can be suicidal. So I agree that imitating the nature is a good start, but it may not be best for the cultivation.


----------



## naoki (Jun 1, 2015)

When people say that plants became yellow with K-Lite (e.g. rcb), did you note which parts became yellow (e.g. entire plants, younger newly growing leaves, or older leaves)?


----------



## consettbay2003 (Jun 1, 2015)

older leaves became severely chlorotic.


----------



## cnycharles (Jun 1, 2015)

To touch on the why tomatoes seem to do better in hydro than in the ground, some explanation could be that with roots in soil, there is limited movement of oxygen and nutrients, and output of wastes per se from the roots. In hydro, you usually have moving water which may have more oxygen from 'turbulation' (brain is tired, made up that word I think  ). Also usually hydro water is fertilized, and often moving so it would seem (this would all vary depending on the exact type and timing of nutrient water application in hydro) that you have constant or more frequent oxygen and food intake possible and at the same time the moving liquid is taking root metabolites away. 
Just like having vigorous air movement across the leaf can pull more nutrients up through the roots, the water movement can bring new and remove wastes more quickly. Also the readily available hydro goodies from moving water and the moving water removing wastes more easily could cost less energy used to do this, also possibly allowing greater tomato growth

Rays very frequent watering/feeding with s/h likely is allowing a more constant root growing condition because food isn't diminished and wastes are frequently removed and watering often might allow greater oxygen levels at the root zone. Someone who uses low levels periodically but doesn't flush and as a result applies less fertilizer may see less results using a product. 
How and when you apply something can have a great effect on the final result, so just saying 'I use brand x or c' and I got these results, doesn't tell half the story. Plants in nature that are being deluged even with unmeasurable levels of food (but there is food in there) the plant can grow because it can collect enough to get by. Also wastes can be removed more often when water is moving over roots 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bullsie (Jun 1, 2015)

I quit using K-lite with my Catts because the new growth was very poor, weak, stunted, floppy, and sometimes yellowed. Floppy growth in some cases progressed to rot. Older leaves show a poor look to them. I did get some yellowing of mature leaves. But many exhibit signs of some sort of cell collapse. Lost quite a few seedlings for no reason that I could think of - everything has been the same for 2 years, including medium - but for the change in fertilizer. I agree, not cold tolerant either. 

I was blaming a dark winter, but I've had those before. Matter of fact, I've been looking into supplemental lighting. I may still add the lighting, but have definitely changed fertilizer.

OH, I don't care for the taste of hydro grown tomatoes.....


----------



## Stone (Jun 1, 2015)

bullsie said:


> I quit using K-lite with my Catts because the new growth was very poor, weak, stunted, floppy, and sometimes yellowed. Floppy growth in some cases progressed to rot. Older leaves show a poor look to them. I did get some yellowing of mature leaves. But many exhibit signs of some sort of cell collapse. Lost quite a few seedlings for no reason that I could think of - everything has been the same for 2 years, including medium - but for the change in fertilizer. I agree, not cold tolerant either.
> 
> I was blaming a dark winter, but I've had those before. Matter of fact, I've been looking into supplemental lighting. I may still add the lighting, but have definitely changed fertilizer.
> 
> OH, I don't care for the taste of hydro grown tomatoes.....


Floppy growth, yellowing older leaves and lack of cold hardiness are all signs of too much N and not enough K.


----------



## rcb (Jun 2, 2015)

Naoki- yellowing for me started on the oldest leaves, (which is why at first didn't think about it) and within the leaf you could see the yellowing progress from the apex to the base. The leaf would then dry up and fall. But as time went on, it was getting to where only 1 yr old leaves would do this as well.

For example, my Latouria Dens, grow great, bloomed great, but they had no leaves except for the newest growths. They were naked lol.

Since I have switched back to MSU, the problem slowed, and now, it appears to have stopped.


----------



## Ray (Jun 2, 2015)

I think that an aspect we have ignored is that of "limiting factors".

Brian Monk and I have had discussions about this in relation to alcohol in the old Jerry's Grow formula, and he proposed the analogy of oxygen supply to the muscles being the limiting factor in runners. (Secretariat, a thoroughbred who set all kinds of records, had a heart twice the size of a normal horse). Jerry's Grow's alcohol may have provided extra carbon to the plants, but Jerry, himself, pointed out that it was only effective in high-light plants - those that live in a high energy input environment, but may be limited in their ability to use that energy by their "fuel supply".

The discussion above about hydroponic tomatoes may very well - as Charles mentioned - have to do with some limiting factor being reduced or eliminated.

None of us knows what the "natural" limiting factors are in orchid growth. Providing lots of fertilizer does not automatically provide for better growth, and in many cases, actually have the opposite effect.

We are focusing all of our attention of the formula of fertilizer, but the differences we are seeing in the performance of our plants just "screams" that the formula is not, by itself, that limiting factor.

I have used K-Lite exclusively for over three years now, and I'm not seeing the yellowing of leaves. Folks have pointed out that it's because of my use of KelpMax, except I'm lazy and not that rigorous about its application, and if the plants see it more than a few times a year, I'd be surprised. Likewise, the difference has been attributed to my growing in semi-hydroponics, but the majority of my collection is not grown that way. What I DO do differently than many is water heavily and often, and that includes about 30 ppm N. 

So what "limiting factor" have I reduced that allows K-Lite to be acceptable to the plants?


Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com


----------



## naoki (Jun 2, 2015)

Charles has a good point that the stability of root environment could be important.

Yellowing of older leaves are consistent with (but not limited to) K deficiency as Mike pointed out. It is interesting some people have problems with K-Lite but others don't. As Ray and Charles mentioned, a lot of other things can influence effectiveness of fertilizer formula.

It is probably difficult to know when K-Lite causes problems (setting the optimality aside), but I do wonder a couple things. Maybe people using low CEC media are likely to have problems (e.g. I usually have some moss included), but Ray is ok with LECA (but with semi-hydro, nutrients could be available for a longer time). Greenhouse vs indoor (e.g. quicker drying in indoor causes the shorter window for the appropriate concentration for nutrients uptake)?

At least for my growing in grow tents with artificial light, I'm pretty sure the limiting factor is photosynthesis; appropriate amount of light, enough water to allow sufficient gas exchange, CO2:O2 ratio, and appropriate temperature (PS is pretty sensitive to temperature). It's difficult to optimize these elements for each species (some things are easy to control like high RH is almost always favored by most orchids to allow them freely open stomata). This is probably the reason I don't see much difference from one fertilizer to another. In other words, I'm not good at growing them yet, but it hasn't prevented me form commenting on fertilizer thread because it's fun to learn from you all.


----------



## orcoholic (Jun 2, 2015)

Ray said:


> I think that an aspect we have ignored is that of "limiting factors".
> 
> Brian Monk and I have had discussions about this in relation to alcohol in the old Jerry's Grow formula



There was alcohol in Jerry's??? Damn, I wasted it on my orchids!!!


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

gonewild said:


> It's raining really hard this morning, probably about 4" per hour. I got a bright idea to go measure the pH of the rain here not in the forest. My bucket filled in a few seconds from water off our roof. I got wet, now I'm cold, but here is my proof oke:



There are absolutely not enough ions in that water for the electrode to work properly. The reading is worthless. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm calling you misled and misinformed. 

You can trust a cheap pH electrode, or you can trust a PhD chemist who has been working with marine and meteoric chemistry for over a decade.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

Amazonian examples of meteoric rainout are typically pH ~4.5 from what I remember (most tropical rainout is between pH 4.0-5.0)


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> Well, Lance, it is hard to argue with the numbers. Can you, for reference sake, take the pH of milk (6.4--6.8) or coffee (black, pH 5). Pure water with CO2 should be acidic, as low as 4 under some circumstances. If the pH of your milk and coffee correspond with the ideal values then you have a stronger case.
> 
> In any case, I'm going to start inoculating my S/H pots with moss.



It's VERY easy to argue with the numbers if you know how such electrode-bearing devices work. They cannot take a measurement in a solution with such a low conductivity.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

TyroneGenade said:


> Generally, running pure water has a pH close to 7. Only when it is left to stand does enough CO2 dissolve into it to lower the pH a lot.



Rainwater does not. 



> CO2 isn't very soluble in water and is easily driven off by agitation.



EXCESS CO2 is what can be driven off. CO2 has an thermodynamic equilibrium solubility in water. 



> The reading close to 7 is expected for unpolluted rain water.



No it absolutely is not. It is expected to be ~5.6 in 1980's atmospheric CO2 concentrations.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

I don't know why I'm actually going to all this trouble when a simple google search will provide you with several examples, and even the equilibrium calculations, for the pH of rainwater in various locations.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> There are absolutely not enough ions in that water for the electrode to work properly. The reading is worthless. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm calling you misled and misinformed.
> 
> You can trust a cheap pH electrode, or you can trust a PhD chemist who has been working with marine and meteoric chemistry for over a decade.



 On the test I made in the forest I also used a very good meter made by Volmatic. 

I may be mislead and misinformed but the group of PhD biologists and grad students I had lunch with the other day were fascinated by my theories.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 2, 2015)

And moreover, any bits of thing or gaz (CO2 especially) dissolving will make the pH change with next to nothing involved.

And whatever the electrode…


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> I don't know why I'm actually going to all this trouble when a simple google search will provide you with several examples, and even the equilibrium calculations, for the pH of rainwater in various locations.



On the first page of a google search I found an abstract.
Seems like maybe the location where the rain forms can effect the pH.
Note that the last line mentions biomass burning and road construction. The area I measured the rain/moss water had zero biomass burning and zero construction, it's one of the wettest places in South America and it's full of orchids. 
Maybe I was there on a neutral day? So I'll invite you to come and test it yourself, then I'll trust your PHd more than my cheap meter. oke:


"ABSTRACT

Fog water, fog drip, and rainfall chemistry were examined at a seasonal tropical rain forest site in Xishuangbanna, south-west China between November 2001 and October 2002. During this period, radiation fog occurred on 204 days, with a total duration of 1949 hours of which 1618 hours (37% of the total time) occurred during the dry season (November to April). Mean pH values of fog water, fog drip, and rain were 6.78, 7.30, and 6.13, respectively. The ion with the highest concentration in both fog and rain water was bicarbonate (HCO3–), followed by calcium, magnesium, and ammonium. Concentrations of nitrate, HCO3–, ammonium, calcium, and potassium in fog water collected in the latter half of the dry season were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than earlier in the dry season. Ionic concentrations in fog drip were higher than those in fog water, except for ammonium and hydrogen. This is attributed to the washing-off of dust and ash-derived nutrients deposited on the leaves and by the leaching of alkaline ions from the leaves. Dry deposition of ash and dust is most probably related to biomass burning and road construction activity."

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511778384&cid=CBO9780511778384A055


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

lepetitmartien said:


> And moreover, any bits of thing or gaz (CO2 especially) dissolving will make the pH change with next to nothing involved.
> 
> And whatever the electrode…



Then I guess the Peruvian cloud forest I was in has bits that make the water neutral rather than acid. Remember the CO2 level where I was maybe extremely low and the O2 level extremely high. There are no atmospheric pollutants from manufacturing, the air is as clean as can be, and it is brand new unused air.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> Amazonian examples of meteoric rainout are typically pH ~4.5 from what I remember (most tropical rainout is between pH 4.0-5.0)


Amazonian rains are not exactly an example of pure water, even sacrifying to a less restrictive definition than the chemist do use. There's a lot of chemistry happening up there, including elements from dust coming from the Sahara, and N combinations done by lightning in the frequent storms.

I remember interestins analysis in the book on Vascular Epiphytes of 1993, lots of matter to think about… (rain, N circuit, tree position in its environment). It was even pointed out as a re-read to make at the scientific conferences of the EOC 2015 at Jodrell Lab in Kew Gardens. We still don't know or understand a lot of things happening there.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

lepetitmartien said:


> We still don't know or understand a lot of things happening there.



Who's side are you on now? oke:

Here.... This research address neutral rain.

http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0187-62362014000100004&script=sci_arttext

It happens. My observation was seeing it happen on the day I took the samples.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

lepetitmartien said:


> Amazonian rains are not exactly an example of pure water, even sacrifying to a less restrictive definition than the chemist do use. There's a lot of chemistry happening up there, including elements from dust coming from the Sahara, and N combinations done by lightning in the frequent storms.



Try to keep up. No one is talking about pure water. We are talking about the pH of rainwater.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

Someone said to Google it.....

_"Fig. 2 shows the water-quality data for rain coUected at Horton Plains from the first week ofNovember 1995 to the last week of April 1996. The pH varied between 5.8 and 7.5 with anaverage of 6.5. The typical range of pH for rain water is between 5.6 and 6.8 (NationalResearch Council). In this experiment three samples out of sixteen had a pH of more than 7.0. These three samples also had a relatively high concentration of NH4N. One possible ex-planation is that free anunonia in the air or in the clouds can react with O~ ions to form
NHtOH."_

http://journals.sjp.ac.lk/index.php/fesympo/article/viewFile/1212/392


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

gonewild said:


> There are no atmospheric pollutants from manufacturing, the air is as clean as can be, and it is brand new unused air.



Oh no? What is the CO2 ppmv there in cloud forest, Peru?


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Who's side are you on now? oke:
> 
> Here.... This research address neutral rain.
> 
> ...



Do you know how to correctly measure the pH of samples of such low ionic strength using an electrode-based instrument? Enlighten the rest of ST so they can accurately measure their rainwater.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> Oh no? What is the CO2 ppmv there in cloud forest, Peru?



Why ask about CO2?
I said "There are no atmospheric pollutants from manufacturing, the air is as clean as can be, and it is brand new unused air."
I hope you are not going to say that CO2 is an atmospheric pollutant.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> Do you know how to correctly measure the pH of samples of such low ionic strength using an electrode-based instrument? Enlighten the rest of ST so they can accurately measure their rainwater.



Why not address the fact that I have shown you several links to papers that measured rainwater samples at pH 7 and above. You said it was impossible for rainwater to be pH7, it's not impossible.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> Do you know how to correctly measure the pH of samples of such low ionic strength using an electrode-based instrument? Enlighten the rest of ST so they can accurately measure their rainwater.



How accurate am I required to be?
We are talking about growing plants not making rocket fuel.


----------



## naoki (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> Do you know how to correctly measure the pH of samples of such low ionic strength using an electrode-based instrument? Enlighten the rest of ST so they can accurately measure their rainwater.



Chris, if you don't mind, can you share how to do it? From my experience, I know that pH values of purer water (e.g. milli-Q water) doesn't stabilize with most electrodes (normal molecular biology lab grade equipment, which can handle Tris buffer, nothing special). But some other electrode seems to stabilize with purer water. I kind of understand why it is difficult, but I'm weak in chemistry, and I have been wondering about it for a while. Are there particular types of electrodes better for this type of application?


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Why ask about CO2?
> I said "There are no atmospheric pollutants from manufacturing, the air is as clean as can be, and it is brand new unused air."
> I hope you are not going to say that CO2 is an atmospheric pollutant.



Of course it is. The point is not up for discussion or debate. Not to mention, I'd love to see an atmospheric chemistry/air quality for where you are in Peru. Because, frankly, you're fond of proudly spouting complete, utter bullshit. I'm just here to make sure people don't interpret it as expertise in any form of atmospheric chemistry.


----------



## ChrisFL (Jun 2, 2015)

naoki said:


> Chris, if you don't mind, can you share how to do it? From my experience, I know that pH values of purer water (e.g. milli-Q water) doesn't stabilize with most electrodes (normal molecular biology lab grade equipment, which can handle Tris buffer, nothing special). But some other electrode seems to stabilize with purer water. I kind of understand why it is difficult, but I'm weak in chemistry, and I have been wondering about it for a while. Are there particular types of electrodes better for this type of application?



Naoki, 

There are electrodes specifically designed for low conductivity solutions. 

There are many things to consider. First, typical electrode storage solutions act to contaminate the boundary layer of the electrode and even small amounts can completely contaminate low ionic strength sample solutions so badly that a measured pH value is meaningless. Second, low ionic strength solutions are extremely susceptible producing static charges that will generate electrical mimicry of H+ ions, and many lower quality pH units are not sufficiently shielded and grounded to eliminate this in a low ionic strength solution. Third, junction potentials will often form because of unequal kinetics of migration of the charges involved (H+ and usually Na+), meaning sometimes minutes or hours are required for a stable reading.

Electrodes suited for pure applications have a continuous leaking fills solution to prevent a junction potential (Most modern pH electrodes are a sealed bulb design with a reference electrode solution existing as a gel coating, hence their long lifespan. Leaking electrode fill solutions obviously need to be frequently refilled). Other methods involve a full suite of calibrations using low ionic strength buffers and storage solutions. 

It is typically possible to get a close, stable reading using extremely high purity KCl to make the sample have a similar ionic strength as the filling solution of a typical electrode and achieve stable (easy to try!). For example, 18.2 megaohm/cm water typical of milli-Q systems, if sealed from atmospheric gases, DOES have a pH of 7.0 at 25°C. Typically, bumping the conductivity of the sample solution to 2 mS/cm is sufficient to get a fast, stable response.


----------



## gonewild (Jun 2, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> Of course it is. The point is not up for discussion or debate. Not to mention, I'd love to see an atmospheric chemistry/air quality for where you are in Peru. Because, frankly, you're fond of proudly spouting complete, utter bullshit. I'm just here to make sure people don't interpret it as expertise in any form of atmospheric chemistry.



Wow! 
Are you being a sore looser? 
You are rude. Why? 

I never presented anything I said as atmospheric chemistry. I simply said and showed what my pH meter read, nothing more. I'm not representing anything as science only what I personally see and experience.


----------



## Ray (Jun 3, 2015)

The global average CO2 content is now around 400 ppm. You can see that it takes far less than that to greatly push the pH off neutral.


----------



## naoki (Jun 3, 2015)

Chris, thank you very much for the detailed explanation!


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 3, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Who's side are you on now? oke:
> 
> Here.... This research address neutral rain.
> 
> ...


I'm not on one side, I despair to see a sane respectful and global talk about k-lite and relevant issues around. (not saying you're not respectful)

Rain just can't be neutral, and from the Vascular Epiphytes book, is more a bit all over the place, for reasons that are sometimes far from Amazonia or just because the CO2 level are on Earth what they are today. There's no such thing as "pure" water falling down there (or anywhere). Not by evil chemist standards, nor by orchidophile standard. :evil:


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 3, 2015)

ChrisFL said:


> Try to keep up. No one is talking about pure water. We are talking about the pH of rainwater.


Chris, when you'll stop overinterpreting what people post it'll be a nice move. Your input is always interesting, but your constant attacks on sometimes shortcuts or misreads is tiring. I was especially pointing out that rainwater CAN'T be "pure", and moreover in the Amazonian ecosystem. As I said, I'm not on one side, I ponder inputs usually in popcorn mode as there's nothing else to do under the missiles flying.

Due to my current state of health  I will not interfer more in the subject, I have better to do with my energy left. I just hope we'll be all able to have a sane, informative and respectful thread one day on k-lite and global issues around it (like water, the way orchids bathe their feet, the soap used…) and especially at finding why it does marvels to some and leads to disasters to others (as there was in another thread and it was interesting). It'll be a nice move.

I'm out, don't answer please, I'm too tired and I'm not into the heart of the talk anyway, thank you. :ninja:


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 5, 2015)

Get well Lepetitmartian!


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 5, 2015)

Here is a product for people whose plants are now suffering from potassium deficiency, "K-Max Extra":
http://nutriag.com/product/usa/kmaxextra


----------



## Ozpaph (Jun 5, 2015)

very cheeky LOL


----------



## bullsie (Jun 8, 2015)

After all is said and done, I must mention that for my Paphs I would continue to use the K-lite. I will observe for problems. So don't want to rule this fertilizer out entirely. Just some things work and some things don't work for each individual growing needs.


----------



## Ray (Jun 21, 2015)

Addressing a much earlier series of comments:

Over the last couple of weeks, I had conversations with three university horticulture professors and two plant-nutrient specialists in that industry, and they independently and unanimously stated that general yellowing of leaves ("Of course it will be older ones first") is very likely a simple insufficiency of nitrogen, and not likely due to other nutrient shortages.


----------



## consettbay2003 (Jun 21, 2015)

Ray said:


> Addressing a much earlier series of comments:
> 
> Over the last couple of weeks, I had conversations with three university horticulture professors and two plant-nutrient specialists in that industry, and they independently and unanimously stated that general yellowing of leaves ("Of course it will be older ones first") is very likely a simple insufficiency of nitrogen, and not likely due to other nutrient shortages.



Perhaps there is not an insufficiency of nitrogen but just the wrong type ( 
i.e. too much nitrate and not enough ammonium and urea.)


----------



## Rick (Jun 21, 2015)

We all consider nitrogen as a single species. But there are multiple forms of nitrogen that have very different chemical and biological properties.

Ammonia (or ammonium ion if you prefer) is used more directly by plants, but it is a strong cation, and actually antagonizes / competes with other cations K, Ca, Mg.

Nitrate is not used directly in plant protein synthesis until after it gets converted from nitrate to ammonia by the nitrate reductase system (which requires ATP expenditure i.e phosphate use). Also nitrate is an anion which antagonizes / competes with other common anions such as sulfate, chloride, bicarbonate, and phosphate. If K lite is used in strict RO settings the above anions are going to be in short supply relative to the high nitrate concentration. 

In real world solutions (such as the interstitial water around plant roots). There's very little nitrogen of any kind while Ca, Mg, (cations) sulfate, and chloride abound.

So I've been considering the other half of antagonistic interactions - anionic interactions (primarily between nitrate and sulfate phosphate), and found that if I boost phosphate and sulfate I can increase "greenness" without changing N input. In this case the cation attached to the anions is Mg, which we all commonly associate Epsom salt (MgSO4) addition with boosting "greenness" already. But in order to increase phosphate I neutralized phosphoric acid with MgOH.


But overall getting to eco-relevant concentrations of ions is the path that's working for me.


----------



## Rick (Jun 21, 2015)

Another common practice that adds to anionic imbalances is pot liming (either by oystershell, fine aragonite or dolomitic lime products).

This practice adds a ton of bicarbonate which competes directly with nitrate and phosphate uptake. Secondarily Calcium carbonate sucks up phosphate making it unavailable to the plant.

In another thread on lime use I included that I have removed all lime products from use in my potting systems (other than what occurs in my diluted well water).


----------



## troy (Jun 21, 2015)

This stuff is great!!! everytime I come across this thread reminds me


----------



## Rick (Jun 21, 2015)

pH – 6.81
Conductivity – 60 uS/cm (TDS ~ 45 ppm)
Total Hardness – 26.4 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity – 20 mg/L as CaCO3 (24.4 mg/L HCO3)
6.8 mg/L Ca, 2.3 mg/L Mg
Nitrate – 3.7 mg/L NO3-N, Ammonia - 0.1 mg/L NH3-N
Phosphorus – 1.05 PO4-P
Potassium – 0.6 mg/L K
Sulfate – 3.0 mg/L SO4
Silicate – 2.8 mg/L SiO2

Above is the final (i.e AFTER mixing in Klite, my MgPO4/SO4 solution, and well water) irrigation solution that I've been applying to my plants DAILY for the last 2 years.

Note that you cannot get these values by mixing K lite in RO water.

To take out the effects from potting mix I do have a single (correct not a significant number for a "full experimental trial") Paph lowii sitting in the above water full time, since November of last year. The support matrix is large glass beads so no additional chemical support is getting to the plant beyond the water. The plant is green and grows leaves and roots just fine. So after 8 months the above solution is fully supportive of Paph lowii growth (completely ignoring the other several hundred plants in my collection that are in potting systems ranging from SH to traditional bark/chc mixes in pots).

If one where to insist on using a potting mix and with some form of calcium bearing material, I'd probably just add a pinch of bone meal (calcium phosphate) and gypsum (calcium sulfate) to the potting mix instead of something that runs up the pH, and just use Klite in RO at roughly 5ppm N.

Or for the Orchiata bark users a pinch of bonemeal with no gypsum, and mix Klite in a dilute city or well water.

Everyday I'm amazed as to how little orchids need to thrive.


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 22, 2015)

Ray said:


> Addressing a much earlier series of comments:
> 
> Over the last couple of weeks, I had conversations with three university horticulture professors and two plant-nutrient specialists in that industry, and they independently and unanimously stated that general yellowing of leaves ("Of course it will be older ones first") is very likely a simple insufficiency of nitrogen, and not likely due to other nutrient shortages.



It is still obvious that using k-lite had a strong negative effect on many people's collections. K-lite was an absurd idea lacking any basis in fact.


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 22, 2015)

Rick said:


> Above is the final (i.e AFTER mixing in Klite, my MgPO4/SO4 solution, and well water) irrigation solution that I've been applying to my plants DAILY for the last 2 years.
> 
> Note that you cannot get these values by mixing K lite in RO water.


So, you take k-lite, mix it with a bunch of other nutrient sources and get what is perhaps a decent nutrient mixture. That is not how you were promoting k-lite 2 years ago.


----------



## Ray (Jun 22, 2015)

Despite David's objections and total lack of positive contribution to the discussion of the science or supposition relating to the formulation, my entire collection of plants appears to be doing quite well with K-Lite in RO.

Nay-saying without contribution is a waste of time.


----------



## Stone (Jun 22, 2015)

DavidCampen said:


> > So, you take k-lite, mix it with a bunch of other nutrient sources and get what is perhaps a decent nutrient mixture.
> 
> 
> 
> I would not call a mix where availability of P is higher than K decent. IMO it is a big mistake.


----------



## Rick (Jun 22, 2015)

Stone said:


> I would not call a mix where availability of P is higher than K decent. IMO it is a big mistake.



How many more years do I need to wait for the hammer to fall. My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.:wink:


----------



## Stone (Jun 22, 2015)

Rick said:


> How many more years do I need to wait for the hammer to fall. My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.:wink:





It shows the adapability of plants. Mine are getting bigger and better too and really I don't see why you persist with the low K idea when you can plainly grow excellent, healthy and long lived plants with great colour and profuse flowering the ''normal way'' And by normal I mean N and K at similar concentrations.
It is just not necessary. I mean what are you actually trying to achieve in the end?


----------



## Rick (Jun 22, 2015)

Stone said:


> It shows the adaptability of plants. ...when you can plainly grow excellent, healthy and long lived plants with great colour and profuse flowering the ''normal way''



Maybe my standards were higher than other growers, but I couldn't achieve the ultimate results you are claiming I would get if I just went back to a "normal feeding regime". Why were my plants not adapting to the "proven methods" for my previous 10 years?

Folks have pretty short memory with the myriad post that start out " I just killed this species (again)..... or can't grow seedlings.....or constantly battling this disease.....or I only get 3-5 years out of this species.....". 

I cut K back in 2011 and drastically reduced negative outcomes. My goal is to grow great plants, and I'm not shy sharing what works form me, and what didn't work for me. My plants are flourishing so I'm not going back. I'm not sure why you persist in claiming that a high K regime is necessary for growing good plants.


----------



## Stone (Jun 22, 2015)

Rick said:


> > Folks have pretty short memory with the myriad post that start out " I just killed this species (again)..... or can't grow seedlings.....or constantly battling this disease.....or I only get 3-5 years out of this species.....".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Jun 22, 2015)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Come on now Rick, that has nothing to do with potassium and you know it.
> ...


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 22, 2015)

Rick said:


> Folks have pretty short memory with the myriad post that start out " I just killed this species (again)..... or can't grow seedlings.....or constantly battling this disease.....or I only get 3-5 years out of this species.....".


You should read the first several pages of this thread where a number of people blame the use of k-lite for causing severe problems.



Rick said:


> I cut K back in 2011 and drastically reduced negative outcomes. My goal is to grow great plants, and I'm not shy sharing what works form me, and what didn't work for me. My plants are flourishing so I'm not going back. I'm not sure why you persist in claiming that a high K regime is necessary for growing good plants.


You don't even use pure k-lite, as you have said several times.


Rick said:


> Above is the final (i.e AFTER mixing in Klite, my MgPO4/SO4 solution, and well water) irrigation solution that I've been applying to my plants DAILY for the last 2 years.
> 
> Note that you cannot get these values by mixing K lite in RO water.



I don't know why you persist in calling a normal fertilizer formulation "high-k", it is not. You should retract that absurd article that you had published in AOS.


----------



## Stone (Jun 23, 2015)

Rick said:


> I'm not sure why you persist in claiming that a high K regime is necessary for growing good plants.



Actually you seem to have it backwards. You are claiming that a LOW K regime is necessary for growing good plants.

A standard N to K ratio (say 20-5-15 or 20) is not high. A high K regime would be something like 10-5-30 which I would generally not recommend. If you added another 20% N to that it would be fine.
60ppm N and 60ppm K works perfectly fine long term for most orchids as long as there is a good amount of Ca and Mg.


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2015)

consettbay2003 said:


> Perhaps there is not an insufficiency of nitrogen but just the wrong type (
> i.e. too much nitrate and not enough ammonium and urea.)



A good point. The VP of sales for Inocucor technologies has stated that his plants seem to do better when a tiny but of urea is added to the solution. When I mentioned that to a technical expert at a fertilizer manufacturer, the response was "(chuckle, chuckle) Of course!" The biological action of the Inocucor Garden Solution is making that nitrogen immediately available.


----------



## Ray (Jun 23, 2015)

Rick said:


> How many more years do I need to wait for the hammer to fall. My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.:wink:





Stone said:


> It shows the adapability of plants. Mine are getting bigger and better too and really I don't see why you persist with the low K idea when you can plainly grow excellent, healthy and long lived plants with great colour and profuse flowering the ''normal way'' And by normal I mean N and K at similar concentrations.
> It is just not necessary. I mean what are you actually trying to achieve in the end?



I believe the only way we'll ever see an end to this discussion is when a large-scale, controlled study is done.

"My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.", "Mine are getting bigger and better too", and my own comments about how well my plants are doing are relatively meaningless - about as good as "I feed at half strength".


----------



## consettbay2003 (Jun 23, 2015)

The 'manufacturers' of orchidata recommend an ammonium content equal to or higher than nitrate or just basic urea.


----------



## Rick (Jun 23, 2015)

DavidCampen said:


> So, you take k-lite, mix it with a bunch of other nutrient sources and get what is perhaps a decent nutrient mixture. T.



Back in 2011 I was already using a portion of well water, and kelp in addition to MSU.

So now I still use the same amount of well water as previous 8 or so years and replaced the kelp (a huge black box of organic and inorganic nutrients) with a very simple supplement of Mg /PO4 and SO4.

So I've simplified the mix considerably.

Further more, compared to my weekly weakly MSU use (prior to 2011) I now use only 1/25 the amount of K, 1/4 the amount of N and 1/3 the amount of P on an annual basis. 

The biomass of my collection has increased since 2011 while considerably reducing the application rate of NPK (especially K).

Now the biomass increase is not due to purchase of new/replacement plants, so why do I need all that K?


----------



## Rick (Jun 23, 2015)

Also on a per watering/feeding event my present NPK application rates are:

1/26, 1/24, 1/188 respectively for NPK compared to my weekly/weakly MSU days.

Those are substantial reductions and still growing strong!


----------



## Rick (Jun 23, 2015)

Ray said:


> I believe the only way we'll ever see an end to this discussion is when a large-scale, controlled study is done.
> 
> "My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.", "Mine are getting bigger and better too", and my own comments about how well my plants are doing are relatively meaningless - about as good as "I feed at half strength".



I also have several local society members (including our own EdM) that have been successfully using low K applications (either K lite or home brew).

One grower near me, that I can inspect in person on a frequent basis, is also having phenomenal results with K-lite as the base fert. Their collection is also considerably larger than mine, with a higher percentage of hybrids. They're very happy.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 24, 2015)

Ray said:


> I believe the only way we'll ever see an end to this discussion is when a large-scale, controlled study is done.
> 
> "My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.", "Mine are getting bigger and better too", and my own comments about how well my plants are doing are relatively meaningless - about as good as "I feed at half strength".



I may add, some thorough explanations on the water used and its qualities may help too. The focus on the fert isn't the whole picture, just like we can't quantize the skill of the growers (save when it's people known for years and years with plants flowering and florishing…)

It'd help focus on the similar uses and avoid the tragic errors, like the person the other year who had a massive cultural issue and was reducing it to K-lite and it wasn't the problem firsthand. I'm not saying it'll clear all querels but at least we can harmonize a little common ground. :evil:


----------



## Stone (Jun 24, 2015)

lepetitmartien said:


> > The focus on the fert isn't the whole picture, just like we can't quantize the skill of the growers (save when it's people known for years and years with plants flowering and florishing…)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## consettbay2003 (Jun 25, 2015)

I have a feeling that a study would show that most house plants 'expire before their time'. I think more orchids expire prematurely because of improper watering.


----------



## Lmpgs (Jun 25, 2015)

consettbay2003 said:


> I have a feeling that a study would show that most house plants 'expire before their time'. I think more orchids expire prematurely because of improper watering.




More or less watering?


----------



## consettbay2003 (Jun 25, 2015)

Lmpgs said:


> More or less watering?



Less would result in fewer loses.


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 25, 2015)

> I am comfortable assuming that monopodial orchids have some finite life span - whatever that may be, ...
> __________________
> Ray Barkalow, Orchid Iconoclast
> Using science and logic to advance orchid growing


http://www.orchidboard.com/community/scientific-matters/84942-orchids-live.html


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 25, 2015)

Rick said:


> How many more years do I need to wait for the hammer to fall. My stuff just keeps getting bigger and better.:wink:



I can say the same about my collection which receives a normal level of potassium(N:K 2:1:2). OTOH, in the 1st several pages of this thread, a number of people have stated that they saw the hammer fall on their collections after a year or 2 of using k-lite.


----------



## gnathaniel (Jun 25, 2015)

The regrettable problem with this thread, as all others I've read on the subject, is that virtually every significant argument on BOTH sides is purely anecdotal, with very little contextual situation that might at least help us better evaluate the import of the various anecdotes. The nay-sayers are certainly correct that K-Lite isn't supported by verifiable evidence, but they've blithely (or disingenuously?) omitted the key qualification that their arguments against K-Lite likewise lack scientific support, especially considering what strong claims have been made/implied. Or have I just missed those copious scientific trials establishing the 'ideal' nutrition regime for 'orchids' in 'culture,' by any definitions of the various ambiguous terms? While I realize this thread was started to invite anecdotal reports, the extrapolations from those anecdotes too often go ridiculously beyond their relatively weak evidentiary import.


----------



## paphioland (Jun 25, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> The regrettable problem with this thread, as all others I've read on the subject, is that virtually every significant argument on BOTH sides is purely anecdotal, with very little contextual situation that might at least help us better evaluate the import of the various anecdotes. The nay-sayers are certainly correct that K-Lite isn't supported by verifiable evidence, but they've blithely (or disingenuously?) omitted the key qualification that their arguments against K-Lite likewise lack scientific support, especially considering what strong claims have been made/implied. Or have I just missed those copious scientific trials establishing the 'ideal' nutrition regime for 'orchids' in 'culture,' by any definitions of the various ambiguous terms? While I realize this thread was started to invite anecdotal reports, the extrapolations from those anecdotes too often go ridiculously beyond their relatively weak evidentiary import.



The best commercial growers don't use K-Lite and grow amazingly on a large scale from flask to bloom. I have tried K-lite in my environment and in addition cut back on fertilization and pretty quickly started having a multitude of problems. 
How does the OZ do well with their plants, how does TON???? So it is obvious that the theory that K is toxic at levels used in fertilization and seriously hurts the ability to grow paphs is wrong. Take what you want from it but why take tremendous risk for something that will have minuscule at best benefit. If you can grow equiv to OZ or TON or Hawaii greenhouses great then maybe you want to experiment to do better. Im fine growing at that level if I can achieve it ever.


----------



## gnathaniel (Jun 25, 2015)

paphioland said:


> The best commercial growers don't use K-Lite and grow amazingly on a large scale from flask to bloom. I have tried K-lite in my environment and in addition cut back on fertilization and pretty quickly started having a multitude of problems.
> How does the OZ do well with their plants, how does TON???? So it is obvious that the theory that K is toxic at levels used in fertilization and seriously hurts the ability to grow paphs is wrong. Take what you want from it but why take tremendous risk for something that will have minuscule at best benefit. If you can grow equiv to OZ or TON or Hawaii greenhouses great then maybe you want to experiment to do better. Im fine growing at that level if I can achieve it ever.



Please go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than incorrectly assuming I'm arguing for any side in this debate. My critique was of the procedural or methodological tone these discussions always seem to take, and did not address the relative merits of any particular position on the issues under discussion.

While your experiential anecdotes are about as useful as any in this thread, your broader assertions don't seem to draw on your own personal knowledge. Unless you're the proprietor of OZ, TON, or any of the Hawaii greenhouses to which you referred? Regardless of whether or not you are, your vague allegations of "tremendous risk" for "minuscule at best benefit" from K-Lite use do NOT logically follow from your premise that commercial growers produce excellent plants using higher rates of feeding.


----------



## cnycharles (Jun 25, 2015)

There's a lot of yelling and not much listening. One thing will not work for everyone. It is good to have all sectors relate their successes or lack thereof, so others can compare their conditions and type of care to see if it is comparable and might work. We've all seen lots of reports from people who were using lots of fertilizer and were having a decided lack of success. There are people who reported that they had lack of success using Klite. It was already mentioned that a trial needs to be done from start to finish just using different food and compare the results



Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## paphioland (Jun 25, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> Please go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than incorrectly assuming I'm arguing for any side in this debate. My critique was of the procedural or methodological tone these discussions always seem to take, and did not address the relative merits of any particular position on the issues under discussion.
> 
> While your experiential anecdotes are about as useful as any in this thread, your broader assertions don't seem to draw on your own personal knowledge. Unless you're the proprietor of OZ, TON, or any of the Hawaii greenhouses to which you referred? Regardless of whether or not you are, your vague allegations of "tremendous risk" for "minuscule at best benefit" from K-Lite use do NOT logically follow from your premise that commercial growers produce excellent plants using higher rates of feeding.



There is no way to do a definitive trial at some point you need to use the data, biologic understanding and extrapolate. It is too complicated. You might be able to say with these parameters we can disprove the null hypothesis or that there is a relationship or effect between variables.
What happens if we do a randomized trial and then when you get your data I say No no no with 10 more lumens of light and 5 degree warmer temp your conclusion wouldn't hold true?
I know Terry well for many many years and I know Machan. I know exactly how Terry fertilized for years. Like I said he doesnt use K-lite never did. He feeds a balanced fertilizer generously. Ive been going there for over 10 yrs of my life. If plants can be grown and bloomed that well on such a large scale that is better proof to me that K is not toxic at the levels we fertilize. I'm disproving the null hypothesis. K is toxic to paphs at levels we fertilize So you cant bloom and grow paphs well with normal K levels. Wait no it is not true, there are examples where it obviously is not true. Actually there are many examples. Show me a large operation that blooms consistently from flask to bloom with high quality in a timely manner using k-lite. Then I think this might be a conversation worth having until then I could care less because I know you can grow well on a large scale, efficiently using normal K.


----------



## paphioland (Jun 25, 2015)

I'm not trying to sound flippant but for me there really is no point. I have vigorous growth and good blooms. There are other factors I've changed that I've noticed huge differences. Lowering K is not one of them. My opinion is growers would do much better focusing on temperature, airmovement, air composition, light and humidity.


----------



## paphioland (Jun 25, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> Please go back and re-read what I actually wrote, rather than incorrectly assuming I'm arguing for any side in this debate. My critique was of the procedural or methodological tone these discussions always seem to take, and did not address the relative merits of any particular position on the issues under discussion.
> 
> While your experiential anecdotes are about as useful as any in this thread, your broader assertions don't seem to draw on your own personal knowledge. Unless you're the proprietor of OZ, TON, or any of the Hawaii greenhouses to which you referred? Regardless of whether or not you are, your vague allegations of "tremendous risk" for "minuscule at best benefit" from K-Lite use do NOT logically follow from your premise that commercial growers produce excellent plants using higher rates of feeding.



If you read my previous thread when I am paying attention to my paphs Ive never had a problem growing and efficiently blooming paphs. Ive been lucky to have some great mentorship. I tried k-lite and noticed changes for the worse quickly and they kept getting worse. I have gone back and everything is recovering. My thinking is I push my plants growth in many ways and they may not have tolerated it. I think you could grow with lower k-lite but I bet it is less efficient. You probably cant push the plant with temp, light and co2. Regardless I do have personal experience.


----------



## Stone (Jun 25, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> > that virtually every significant argument on BOTH sides is purely anecdotal
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gnathaniel (Jun 25, 2015)

Stone said:


> gnathaniel said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect. There is ample proof (trials) that normal K leves work and do NOT produce deleterious effects. It's not anecdotal
> ...


----------



## consettbay2003 (Jun 25, 2015)

Let's not forget that K-Lite is not only K light but also P light.


----------



## Stone (Jun 26, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > Very glib, Mike!
> ...


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 26, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Very glib, Mike! Could you refer me to the literature you've been reading so I don't have to wade through hundreds of posts to mine for a few potentially relevant 'gems,' assuming the trials to which you refer have been cited here before? And are you sure the trials really say what you claim them to? Your statement that "normal K leves [sic] work and do NOT produce deleterious effects" is both less precise and much broader than the kinds of conclusions I've seen in scientific papers on plant nutrition. I look forward to reviewing the studies you've been reading, though, thanks in advance for the helpful citations!
> ...


----------



## DavidCampen (Jun 26, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Very glib, Mike! Could you refer me to the literature you've been reading so I don't have to wade through hundreds of posts to mine for a few potentially relevant 'gems,' assuming the trials to which you refer have been cited here before? And are you sure the trials really say what you claim them to? Your statement that "normal K leves [sic] work and do NOT produce deleterious effects" is both less precise and much broader than the kinds of conclusions I've seen in scientific papers on plant nutrition. I look forward to reviewing the studies you've been reading, though, thanks in advance for the helpful citations!
> ...


----------



## Ray (Jun 26, 2015)

Stone said:


> There is ample proof (trials) that normal K leves work and do NOT produce deleterious effects. It's not anecdotal.




Mike, maybe I'm over-interpreting, but many of those arguments appear to be based upon experience when _applying_ fertilizers with high K levels, but we need to consider that part of the goal of low-level application is to forestall accumulation within the growing media.
Most growers do not intentionally "push" the life span of their media, but change it out regularly, so don't really test that.

With over 40 years of orchid growing under my belt, I too, have used fertilizer formulas with high - and very high - K levels. I cannot say they were damaging to my plants. What I can say is that my experience with very low levels is also not damaging to my plants or their blooming performance, but - and this is "just anecdotal" - I perceive that plants I have intentionally left in the same S/H pot and medium for several years are showing sustained growth and blooming, when they had shown a decline under a different feeding regimen.


Ray Barkalow
firstrays.com


----------



## gonewild (Jun 26, 2015)

DavidCampen said:


> I see that we have a mini-Lance.



And so SlipperTalk drifts off into the file of typical forums under the realm of Trolls.


----------



## Secundino (Jun 26, 2015)

Rick said:


> pH – 6.81
> Conductivity – 60 uS/cm (TDS ~ 45 ppm)
> Total Hardness – 26.4 mg/L as CaCO3
> 
> Everyday I'm amazed as to how little orchids need to thrive.




Indeed - that is a water quality I can only dream of! Our tap water comes with 1200 ppm and the most common drinking water has 401mg. Imagine the amount of salts I can add to get a decent water for my orchids! :rollhappy::rollhappy:

Which water I should use to flush with? oke:

So I hardly ever use fertilizers - a bit of urea some times, a bit of epsom salts every blue moon - and my plants survive. A few years. A decade or so, which is pretty good when you are not growing mussels!


----------



## gnathaniel (Jun 26, 2015)

Stone said:


> Needlessly offensive. Not glib. Succinct with perhaps a sprinkling of intolerance of failure to see the obvious.



Oh, I wasn't offended, just disappointed by your blatant misapprehension of what I've actually claimed. Perhaps you mistake me for someone arguing for K-Lite? And yes, 'glib' is a far more accurate description than 'succinct', as the latter implies a certain useful density of content that I didn't perceive in what you wrote.



Stone said:


> Thinly veiled sarcasm as well!? That's the new level now is it?



That's rich! I intended no sarcasm or verbal irony in what I wrote and I'm sorry if that's how it came across, I'll strive to be more precise in how I communicate. Even had I intended sarcasm, though, you and others have written such blatantly rude invective against K-Lite's champions over the years that it's hard to take your pretended umbrage seriously.




Stone said:


> So what more ''precice'' and less ''broad'' conclusions have you seen?
> Please show and explain them to me.



No need whatsoever! Anyone with a basic grasp of how the English language is properly used to make, defend, and critique scientific claims can readily parse the inescapable vagueness and indefensible overbreadth of your blustery assertion. Since I know for a fact that you meet or exceed said 'basic grasp' threshold, it's hard to conclude that you're doing anything other than engaging in the "thinly veiled sarcasm" of which you just accused me.



Stone said:


> You can start with these: (or any of your own which I may not have seen)
> 
> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-06832010000500014&script=sci_arttext
> http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/29/4/269.full.pdf
> ...



Thank you (with all sincerity)! I've read most but not all of these, however none argue against my original point. I'll let you go back and re-read my original post in this thread to remind yourself of what I'm actually arguing.



DavidCampen said:


> I see that we have a mini-Lance.
> 
> I posted copious literature over the period of 2-3 years ago showing that the potassium toxicity conjecture was absurd; only to be met with flippant, disingenuous and sarcastic remarks like you have just demonstrated.



Nice to see you too, David! I'm sorry you think I'm being flippant, disingenuous, or sarcastic, but then you do always seem quick to assume the worst of others. Care to repost links to the literature supporting your extremely strong claim? Do you, as someone apparently highly versed in scientific inquiry, understand what I mean by a 'strong' claim? I'll give you a hint: it's not synonymous with 'good,' 'powerful,' 'airtight,' or 'easily defensible'... (and yes, that was a little sarcastic)

Going with the spirit of this overly anecdote-laden thread, I've discussed the assumptions behind K-Lite with several academics in the fields of horticulture, plant physiology, and plant pathology, and while all were initially skeptical, none found the idea implausible in certain contexts. Most intrigued by the idea were a couple of people doing cutting-edge research on microbial constituents of plant rhizospheres; apparently one of their main research interests right now is investigating what, if any, selective pressures might be exerted on associated microbes of food crops by conventional fertilization regimes, and how this in turn affects nutrient uptake, disease rates, and need for protective interventions like fungicides. And no, I won't name names. My point is about the utter insufficiency of support on both sides of this debate, not about the relative merits supporting either.


----------



## jtrmd (Jun 26, 2015)

*WHY CANT WE JUST TURN THIS INTO A POLL AND STOP THE PICKERING.IF IT WORKS FOR YOU GREAT AND, IF IT DIDN'T THATS OK TOO. ONE PERSONS CULTURE WONT WORK FOR EVERYONE. I KNOW I CANT GROW CATTS AS WELL AS SOMEONE IN HAWAII. SO I DONT TRY TO MIMIC THEIR CULTURE.* This thread has officially gone nowhere from what was originally asked.lol!


----------



## Stone (Jun 27, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> Oh, I wasn't offended, just disappointed by your blatant misapprehension of what I've actually claimed. Perhaps you mistake me for someone arguing for K-Lite? And yes, 'glib' is a far more accurate description than 'succinct', as the latter implies a certain useful density of content that I didn't perceive in what you wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately I don't have time to respond at the moment but rest assured that this claptrap will not go unanswered.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 27, 2015)

Sigh, calm down guys… It's a thread I'm deeply interested into, but my current (for coming months if you please) state of health doesn't need such arguments and bashing and trolling when all can be talked into quietly.

I will go thru this summer into the litterature linked, but educated controversy means courtesy and quiet or we're just a bunch of pancrace players.

And to answer to Rick yes, orchids roots are highly efficient at taking every bit they can grab till saturated. And it's a fact (Vascular Epiphytes, love this book) for more than 23 years.


----------



## Secundino (Jun 27, 2015)

Oh, what a book! Just had a little impression online and it seems to be an amazing recopilation! Thanks for the link. Though, 99€ is not affordable for me now.
Keep healthy, lepetitmartien, and take care of all Vanillas!


----------



## Ray (Jun 27, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> Going with the spirit of this overly anecdote-laden thread, I've discussed the assumptions behind K-Lite with several academics in the fields of horticulture, plant physiology, and plant pathology, and while all were initially skeptical, none found the idea implausible in certain contexts. Most intrigued by the idea were a couple of people doing cutting-edge research on microbial constituents of plant rhizospheres; apparently one of their main research interests right now is investigating what, if any, selective pressures might be exerted on associated microbes of food crops by conventional fertilization regimes, and how this in turn affects nutrient uptake, disease rates, and need for protective interventions like fungicides. And no, I won't name names. My point is about the utter insufficiency of support on both sides of this debate, not about the relative merits supporting either.


Thank you, Nat.


----------



## Stone (Jun 28, 2015)

gnathaniel said:


> > My point is about the utter insufficiency of support on both sides of this debate
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Jun 28, 2015)

gonewild said:


> And so SlipperTalk drifts off into the file of typical forums under the realm of Trolls.



Need to be accurate. I have not seen any evidence of a troll on this forum.
Every one has a right to argue a point and also to point out the flaws in someone else's argument as they see them.

That is all I have seen. The fact that you may be uncomfortable with any particular argument does not constitute being ''trolled''


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 28, 2015)

To keep coming with the same argument however accurate they are is losing the "agree to disagree point". At one point it's bashing, then trolling. I don't want to point any here, nor telling who's right (got to do my homework), but to give things a chance to advance in an interesting manner, it's more than time for some, including me to dive into the litterature given and think on it. Redo the same ukazes for months won't get anywhere and it's tiring for everyone.

Note that I'm head mod on a tech website for 13 years, so I have a big flame/troll detector grown by use in a Lamarckian manner.  And we dont need flames or trolling (in case there's definitions out there) we are orchid lovers, not hairy underbirdge dwellers. 

Some may right, others may be to, everyone may be totally out in space either on something. But it's more than time to calm down and check facts, and there's plenty we have to digest first to add our 2 cents in a educated manner. Rick may be wrong, he may have pointed something interesting h minsinterprets, but respect is for all, thank you. And shouting the same arguments won't push truth if we can reach it any closer. 

Yes Vascular Epiphytes is a great lecture, a large part of MSU is even in it in the analysis of water, and yes, Vanilla thrives


----------



## Stone (Jun 29, 2015)

lepetitmartien said:


> > To keep coming with the same argument however accurate they are is losing the "agree to disagree point".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ray (Jun 29, 2015)

I think that anyone recommending the use of a fertilizer to correct almost any plant growth issue is folly - with one exception: they have not been feeding at all, and there is a deficiency (which is likely very rare).

Orchid culture is a very complex combination of a myriad of variables, and I cannot imagine that any two growers have identical sets of them. I think it's entirely plausible that a difference in one variable might create the possibility that changing another might be an advantage, or might "still work fine", while it might not for the first grower.

I have great respect for the opinions of most of the folks here, but I don't believe that any have all the answers, and that these debates are more like the blind men describing the elephant.


----------



## paphioland (Jun 29, 2015)

Ray said:


> I think that anyone recommending the use of a fertilizer to correct almost any plant growth issue is folly - with one exception: they have not been feeding at all, and there is a deficiency (which is likely very rare).
> 
> Orchid culture is a very complex combination of a myriad of variables, and I cannot imagine that any two growers have identical sets of them. I think it's entirely plausible that a difference in one variable might create the possibility that changing another might be an advantage, or might "still work fine", while it might not for the first grower.
> 
> I have great respect for the opinions of most of the folks here, but I don't believe that any have all the answers, and that these debates are more like the blind men describing the elephant.



I agree with what you said . I certainly am not claiming to know much. That why I try to disprove absolute statements with my observations and experiences. My point is that you can grow well with normal balanced fertilizer. Really well. So the statement that k is toxic at those levels and always prevents efficient and great growing from flask to bloom is not true. I'm sure there is more than one way to achieve good culture and different species even clones may vary. But I've seen the most evidence with normal fert levels and ratios.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Jun 29, 2015)

I couldn't agree more with that last post.
Now let's shut this thread out. It's just tiring and waste of time and space for the most part, although I do enjoy hearing about different experiences different growers have at certain reasonable levels.


----------



## Rick (Jun 29, 2015)

paphioland said:


> I agree with what you said . I certainly am not claiming to know much. That why I try to disprove absolute statements with my observations and experiences. My point is that you can grow well with normal balanced fertilizer. Really well. So the statement that k is toxic at those levels and always prevents efficient and great growing from flask to bloom is not true. I'm sure there is more than one way to achieve good culture and different species even clones may vary.



However, the flip side that K application > 50ppm is necessary to prevent catastrophic potassium deficiency as indicated in Wang's paper is equally untrue in the broad sense. Would have to note all the specifics.

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/42/7/1563.full.pdf

Even within this paper he cannot document the same lethal K deficiency symptoms for growing in moss vs bark. With further caveats to a specific Phalae hybrid clone, and specific fert N condition.

However in my GH, moss/bark/chc/ mounted/glass marbles I haven't killed anything with K application rates of <1ppm. And my plants are doing better than when I followed the basic generic advice about applying >50ppmK


----------



## SlipperFan (Jun 29, 2015)

Maybe this isn't the time or place to post this, but so much talk about fertilizer and how this is good and this is bad, I want to remind everyone that MSU developed _their_ formula for _their_ use with _their_ water. It caught on when people started realizing how great their plants were growing, and the awards they were amassing. That's the well water formula. The rain water formula was developed as a modification for use with rain water at the request of Porter's Orchids. 

Why do we still think one size fits all?!


----------



## Chicago Chad (Jun 29, 2015)

So after 6 very long pages I will jump back in. I have grown plants for a long time and orchids for more than 7 of those. I am by no means a professional. During this time I have grown all types of genera and all types of species, from 'Easy' to 'why even bother'

While doing so I tried all types of fertilizers. Each one was given a fair shot. I have about 300 plants and after watching the effects of klite on them, I decided to quit using it. I described them at the beginning of this novel.

This was the only variable I changed. I changed away from klite and the issues stopped. This is the fact. No more no less. It is not opinionated or scornful.

So I am not saying klite is crap. I just won't use it. Everyone should decide for themselves. I never thought it would fix my flaws or even bloom better plants so i think i am being rational. What it did not do is bulk them up. If anything the exact opposite. To have a healthy plant in the long run, I want multiple growths. I now have that again on seedling sized slippers so I am content. 

If some of you guys want to argue unproven theories with words half of us understand, go ahead. But my interest waivers. That is not a specific jab at anyone but one that should be said. If you want me to believe scientific facts, support them. And explain why. If not, I personally intend to trust my experiences. Same as life. If I can't explain the reasons, it's because I'm a hobbyist. And still content.


----------



## lepetitmartien (Jun 30, 2015)

And as Ray re-pointed out, there'e more to it than just fert. I insist on the water qualities of testers, for one. Bad adequation is worse than any fert however good it is (tested the option, went to the wall).

Mike, I don't ask you to shut up, always remember I'm NOT an original English speaker, I may be more harsh than I intend. I ask for calming down to help everyone catch up and read to level, at least those who want and can. So we can progress instead of picking each other stupidly.

The agree to disagree etc is basic netiquette, it really helps online sometimes. We know your arguments, even all may not have understood fully (like me, as I've not read everything as I should have, but I'll have time this summer). And it goes for other speakers here. I'm just trying to pacify an interesting debate before it goes way too far down the drain to the common defeat. It's important, we can all learn from this thread and we already did. The community here is usually softspoken and knowledgeable, it'd be stupid to keep this as a battle when we all want some truths coming out. Even if it means someone is wrong, or that fert x or y is flawed or not, or only adapted to some water qualities and why.

Am I clearer this way.  I appreciate your input, I just regret I have not had the time to give it the full attention it deserves. 

"Patience and length of time
Do more than force or rage."
La Fontaine, Le lion et le rat.


----------



## Heather (Jun 30, 2015)

I gave up on fertilizing everything altogether. Plants are all still blooming and growing without me paying a bit of attention to them other than watering (and even that is spotty in the winter!)


----------

