# K-lite fertilizer



## gonewild (Nov 19, 2011)

Based on Rick's observations that Potassium excess may inhibit orchid plant growth we should design a fertilizer recipe based on low or no potassium.

Let's try not to argue if it is a good idea or not but rather lay out what nutrients and sources a person could use if they want to use the low potassium growing method.

What fertilizer components would be ideal to mix together and in what ratio to make the ideal fertilizer solution? 

We need:
N (nitrogen)
P (phosphorous)
K (potassium)
Ca (calcium)
Mg (magnesium)
and
Trace elements

So Rick what do you suggest?


----------



## Rick (Nov 19, 2011)

Maybe something pushing the leaf litter values.

10_1 _1(NPK) 6Ca 2Mg Maybe silicates at 6 also.

The trace elements in MSU are probably just fine.

This also assumes that I'm using a bark, CHC, or moss based mix.

I might bump things up a bit if I was using inert media or mounting.


----------



## Ray (Nov 19, 2011)

I wonder how much of a minimum Greencare has for a custom blend?

It's hard to get silicates blended in with concentrated fertilizers, as they must be quite alkaline to make the Si soluble, so can react with the acidic species and form insoluble precipitates.


----------



## Rick (Nov 19, 2011)

http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/products/liquid-fertilisers/trio-cmb-foliar.html

http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/downlo...ets/Life-Force Home Range/Life-Force Trio.pdf

Ozpaph posted this link to this Australian product which is pretty close to what I've been conjuring. It even has kelp extract in it.

Click on the see page for detailed product info

I put in an E'quirey and so did Rick H to see if there was a US outlet, but haven't got any response as far as I know.


----------



## Rick (Nov 19, 2011)

Ray said:


> I wonder how much of a minimum Greencare has for a custom blend?
> 
> It's hard to get silicates blended in with concentrated fertilizers, as they must be quite alkaline to make the Si soluble, so can react with the acidic species and form insoluble precipitates.



Also since Calcium nitrate is so hygroscopic its hard to get this put in dry and not have a big soupy mess a week after you open it up.

This is why I've been playing around with separate containers of MSU, Cal nitrate, Magsulfate.

Could probably make a more dilute liquid version all in one.


----------



## Roth (Nov 19, 2011)

Rick said:


> Also since Calcium nitrate is so hygroscopic its hard to get this put in dry and not have a big soupy mess a week after you open it up.
> 
> This is why I've been playing around with separate containers of MSU, Cal nitrate, Magsulfate.
> 
> Could probably make a more dilute liquid version all in one.



The more dilute version will not work, tried it already for the MSU... That's one of the big differences between the MSU suppliers too. Depending on the components, I am sure some oligos and maybe some of the macros become insoluble inside the power on storage. If you mix a perfectly soluble version of MSU ( do it in the lab in 4 parts...), it will precipitate, even at a x10 concentration only (100mL/L of final solution), after usually 12 hours to 2 days maximum.

The second problem, that most fertilizers manufacturers do not understand. Fe EDTA needs to be solubilized alone in warm water, so when it is blended and you just mix the blend with water, the EDTA has greater affinity for some others cations, and the iron is gone in part. Blending powders to make dry fertilizers is nice, but the end product, when stored on the shelves for a while, is absolutely not the intended product. Except if you make it specifically acid, use chelates for the Fe Mn Zn ( different chelates, you cannot use an all EDTA or all EDDHA for those three, would be too long to explain why, but that's chemistry) or do not include calcium and magnesium in the mix.

To include calcium nitrate in many fertilizers, they use thin paraffin coated pellets usually. Then it can be mixed, and will not react too quickly. But if you mix dry powders of any phosphate salts with calcium nitrate, and try to dissolve the result, you will see that a fair part became insoluble already in the dry state (especially as calcium nitrate is so hygroscopic)...

Back to decades ago, people would make their own fertilizers, it is not too difficult anyway.

To make a liquid version of MSU oligos, here we are.

You need to make 2 stock solutions ( the boron will form salts with the FeMnZnCn that are indeed insoluble, so it can never be done in a single stock)


***
Stock 1 
for 1L of water
***
Add 
FeNaEDTA (buy it like that, from www.phytotechlab as an example) 9g

Bring to a boil ( you will see that it is dissolved when the solution is not cloudy anymore. It must be a golden color completely transparent)

Add 2g citric acid
Then add:
MnSO4, H2O 2g
ZnSO4, 7H2O 0.8g
CuSO4, 5H2O 1g

Store in a dark bottle. It will be stable ( better to make fresh stocks every month or so, as it can become contaminated with bacterias)

***
Stock 2 to !L of water

Na2MoO4 200mg
H3BO3 400mg

You need as well to boil it, especially to dissolve the boric acid. 

When you want to get the full MSU package oligos as described, use 1mL/L of each of those two stocks...


Note that there are many different things sold as Fe EDTA around the world. Some are the ferric sodium salts, some are a blend of iron sulfate and either free EDTA or a sodium salt of EDTA. You need to use citric acid in the first stock, (especially if you want to replace EDTA by EDDHA or DTPA), because otherwise, at a certain point, there will be free EDTA in the media. It can catch up the Mn Zn or Cu, which are temporarily solubilized as citrate complexes. You really do not want to have too much EDTA or EDDHA that is not bound, especially in hydroponics or semihydroponics.


----------



## Rick (Nov 19, 2011)

We have an algae nutrient recipe at our lab that is like that Roth.

It's actually 5 separate solutions, but only the micro metals mixture would really need to be set up as you have.

The macros could be kept dry (and separate).

But obviously its more of a hassle to combine 5 separate parts than have everything in one scoop.


----------



## Rick (Nov 19, 2011)

Roth said:


> ***H3BO3 400mg
> 
> You need as well to boil it, especially to dissolve the boric acid.




Don't know. I just spent the last year conducting toxicity tests with Boric acid and had no problems getting 400 mg/L into solution. It even dissolved no problem into water with hardness of 100 mg/L.

But just another detail to work with for the micros.


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 20, 2011)

a few years back when we were still growing our own seedlings, we had an un-remembered brand of fertilizer that had two bags in one 25 lb bag, probably to keep the calcium nitrate from joining with other things. we stopped getting that type, but probably only because it cost more than something else that didn't work as well 

it may be better to just have two different things to use periodically, rather than try to shoehorn too many things into one bag and end up with creative particles


----------



## Stone (Nov 20, 2011)

All very interesting. How many people though have the means of obtaining and measuring accurate amounts of these compounds, or the bravery to start boiling fertilizers in there kitchens? Not me!
What about using your standard 2 part hydroponic fertilizer ( #1 calcium nitrate #2 everything else , reducing #2 by 3/4 leaving you with 1/4 the amount of K, and boosting back your P and trace with a regular pinch of bone meal and Mg sulphate to supply Mg and extra S?


----------



## Ray (Nov 20, 2011)

Bone meal is soluble???


----------



## Rick (Nov 20, 2011)

Stone said:


> All very interesting. How many people though have the means of obtaining and measuring accurate amounts of these compounds, or the bravery to start boiling fertilizers in there kitchens? Not me!
> What about using your standard 2 part hydroponic fertilizer ( #1 calcium nitrate #2 everything else , reducing #2 by 3/4 leaving you with 1/4 the amount of K, and boosting back your P and trace with a regular pinch of bone meal and Mg sulphate to supply Mg and extra S?



That's sounds like what I'm presently doing with MSU fert, Calcium nitrate and Magsulfate.

At this point I haven't put the bone meal back into the system.

However I do have access to phosphoric acid.

At this point the improvements in growth haven't spurred me to start adding back in a lot of stuff. I'm still in cutting mode.


----------



## Rick (Nov 20, 2011)

Ray said:


> Bone meal is soluble???



Slow enough to where its a popular top dress.


----------



## Stone (Nov 20, 2011)

Ray said:


> Bone meal is soluble???



OK, can you get hold of dried blood? The fine dusty kinds are quite soluble, lower in P but plenty of trace elements including Fe. and almost no K.


----------



## Stone (Nov 20, 2011)

Rick said:


> That's sounds like what I'm presently doing with MSU fert, Calcium nitrate and Magsulfate.
> 
> At this point I haven't put the bone meal back into the system.
> 
> ...



They're probably getting everything they need as is.


----------



## Rick (Nov 20, 2011)

Stone said:


> OK, can you get hold of dried blood? The fine dusty kinds are quite soluble, lower in P but plenty of trace elements including Fe. and almost no K.



Bone and blood meal are very different in composition.

Bone meal is primarily calcium phosphate. Blood meal is very high in nitrogen and iron. It's not particularly known as a source of Ca or P.


----------



## Stone (Nov 20, 2011)

I think it has a small amount of P in it?, although we can only really get ''blood and bone'', a mix of blood, flesh and bone steamed and dried.
If I want the bone I have to seive out the blood.
It is an excellent fertilizer I've been using on all sorts of things for years.


----------



## SlipperKing (Nov 20, 2011)

Ray said:


> Bone meal is soluble???



Ray,
I've thrown a tbs of bone into any volume of water, shake very well, let the big stuff settle then pour over the rest. Concentration not defined but it has worked for me.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 21, 2011)

Bloodmeal is an excellent fertilizer for greenhouse use. Not so good in a living space. It tends to smell like what it is...dead animals.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 21, 2011)

Rick said:


> Maybe something pushing the leaf litter values.
> 
> 10_1 _1(NPK) 6Ca 2Mg Maybe silicates at 6 also.
> 
> ...



OK how do we make a 448 gram (1 pound) bag of fertilizer that we can mix to different strengths.... like 1 tsp per gallon of water?

If we want to have the ratio you suggest but not using MSU as a part because we don't want the potassium.

10-1-1 NPK
6 Ca
2 mg
Trace elements (how much does MSU contain?)

Possible contents are?
Calcium Nitrate
Potassium Nitrate
?

Since Calcium Nitrate is difficult to handle what else can we use to source calcium to make a stable dry mix? There must be some form of stable water soluble calcium.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 21, 2011)

How about..........
http://www.baicor.com/products/view/23


----------



## Rick (Nov 21, 2011)

gonewild said:


> OK how do we make a 448 gram (1 pound) bag of fertilizer that we can mix to different strengths.... like 1 tsp per gallon of water?
> 
> If we want to have the ratio you suggest but not using MSU as a part because we don't want the potassium.
> 
> ...



I think the bulk of nitrate in MSU is from potassium nitrate. Roth say's there is a parafin coated calcium nitrate that avoids the hygroscopic issue. So I guess a bulk replacement of the KNO3 with CaNO3 would be pretty simple. Then just add a bit extra MgSO4.

I can't give exact numbers right now (at work). But I guess the first thing to check on is the available of "peletized" calcium nitrate.


"To include calcium nitrate in many fertilizers, they use thin paraffin coated pellets usually. Then it can be mixed, and will not react too quickly. But if you mix dry powders of any phosphate salts with calcium nitrate, and try to dissolve the result, you will see that a fair part became insoluble already in the dry state (especially as calcium nitrate is so hygroscopic)..."


----------



## gonewild (Nov 21, 2011)

Rick said:


> I think the bulk of nitrate in MSU is from potassium nitrate. Roth say's there is a parafin coated calcium nitrate that avoids the hygroscopic issue. So I guess a bulk replacement of the KNO3 with CaNO3 would be pretty simple. I can't give exact numbers right now (at work). But I guess the first thing to check on is the available of "peletized" calcium nitrate.



No, not the best direction. The parafin coating separates when the pellets are dissolved in water and floats to the surface as wax. This makes a mess and creates a problem if used with an injector or even with fine nozzles. To over come this you would have to filter the liquid solution before use.


----------



## Rick (Nov 21, 2011)

gonewild said:


> No, not the best direction. The parafin coating separates when the pellets are dissolved in water and floats to the surface as wax. This makes a mess and creates a problem if used with an injector or even with fine nozzles. To over come this you would have to filter the liquid solution before use.



Then probably stuck with a solution rather than dry powder, and still maybe with a part A and part B solution.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 21, 2011)

gonewild said:


> No, not the best direction. The parafin coating separates when the pellets are dissolved in water and floats to the surface as wax. This makes a mess and creates a problem if used with an injector or even with fine nozzles. To over come this you would have to filter the liquid solution before use.



Interesting. Is that why my siphon that I use for fertilizing is getting less and less efficient each time I use it?

If so, how do I get rid of the wax if it's inside the siphon?


----------



## gonewild (Nov 21, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> Interesting. Is that why my siphon that I use for fertilizing is getting less and less efficient each time I use it?
> 
> If so, how do I get rid of the wax if it's inside the siphon?



If there is wax, when you dissolve the Calcium Nitrate you will see the white wax floating like a cream or foam on the water surface.

Is the siphon brass?
If you boil it in water the wax will melt off and float to the surface of the water.

Need to find 100% soluble Calcium Nitrate and not the prilled form. You can use the prilled form by straining it through a filter after it is dissolved...like a coffee filter. But that is not very convenient if you have much liquid.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 21, 2011)

Thanks, Lance. Yes, the siphon is brass. I'll try boiling it.

I've been using the MSU formula and lately adding some Calcium Nitrate. I don't know if it's the prilled form or not, but I certainly can filter it.

Thanks again!


----------



## gonewild (Nov 21, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> Thanks, Lance. Yes, the siphon is brass. I'll try boiling it.
> 
> I've been using the MSU formula and lately adding some Calcium Nitrate. I don't know if it's the prilled form or not, but I certainly can filter it.
> 
> Thanks again!



You're welcome!
If the Calcium Nitrate looks like little balls it is the wax coated. If it looks like coarse sugar it is the soluble form. One of the reasons they coat it is so that it will flow, dry, through agri fertilizer applicators. Little balls roll along.


----------



## Stone (Nov 21, 2011)

The cal.nitrate I use is in the form of little round balls. It disolves in about 1 min. in warm water. I've never noticed any wax residue?


----------



## Rick (Nov 21, 2011)

my stuff is straight cal nitrate with waters of hydration.

It's like wet granular sugar and dissolves almost instantly.

If you leave it open on the kitchen table it sucks water out of the air and turns into a gloppy mess.


----------



## Ray (Nov 22, 2011)

The calcium nitrate I buy is granular, and it is not particularly bad about becoming "glopped up" with moisture.

When I repackage the MSU stuff, it is far more sensitive.


----------



## Justin (Nov 22, 2011)

i have been pre-mixing the dry ingredients (MSU, wax-coated Calcium Nitrate, and epsom salts) in very small batches and sealing in a tupperware container. 

The Calcium Nitrate picks up some moisture from the other ingredients or directly from the air but it is not too bad. There is definitely some precipitate when mixed into water (maybe it is the wax?). Still, it is manageable for my small-scale application and even if some of the Calcium Nitrate is rendered insoluble my plants are definitely showing undeniable evidence of improvement.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 22, 2011)

What do you guy think of this program? Maybe add a micro program in there?

Advanced Nutrients


----------



## Stone (Nov 22, 2011)

keithrs said:


> What do you guy think of this program? Maybe add a micro program in there?
> 
> Advanced Nutrients



SG_A looks like a good start, just add some potassium sulphate if you feel the need. Buying liquid fertilizers in bulk is an expesive way to get your nurients compared to dry types. You are mainly paying for water


----------



## Rick (Nov 22, 2011)

keithrs said:


> What do you guy think of this program? Maybe add a micro program in there?
> 
> Advanced Nutrients



I remember looking at this company for their hydroponic stuff (which is loppsided for K).

Some of their products list magnesium salts in them, but don't list a final concentration.

To me it was too complex to bother.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 22, 2011)

Rick said:


> I remember looking at this company for their hydroponic stuff (which is loppsided for K).
> 
> Some of their products list magnesium salts in them, but don't list a final concentration.
> 
> To me it was too complex to bother.



Every fertilizer I look at these days is lopsided toward K.... Or it's a "blooming" formula with little N and tons of P. 

So where stuck with MSU, CaNo3, MgSO4 for now?

As Stone pointed out.... it would be too expensive to buy what is out there already on the shelf as most of it is liquid. If you could even find a low K formula....


----------



## Rick (Nov 22, 2011)

keithrs said:


> Every fertilizer I look at these days is lopsided toward K.... Or it's a "blooming" formula with little N and tons of P.




Unless we can get hold of the Nutri-tech Solutions stuff from Australia.

There was a grass turf specialty company I found on the web that also looked like it had a cal/mag system that was intriguing, but I didn't follow up on it. The Ca/Mg was chelated in some type of organosulfonates much like it came out of wood products.

In general the grass folks also seem to be pushing the cal/mag thing.


----------



## Stone (Nov 22, 2011)

keithrs said:


> > Or it's a "blooming" formula with little N and tons of P
> 
> 
> .
> ...


----------



## keithrs (Nov 23, 2011)

Rick said:


> Unless we can get hold of the Nutri-tech Solutions stuff from Australia.
> 
> There was a grass turf specialty company I found on the web that also looked like it had a cal/mag system that was intriguing, but I didn't follow up on it. The Ca/Mg was chelated in some type of organosulfonates much like it came out of wood products.
> 
> In general the grass folks also seem to be pushing the cal/mag thing.



There seems to be quite a difference in turf fertilizers..... But the they have quite bit of sulfur and iron. I have not seen much Ca/Mg. In the short search I did, the highest I saw was 4% Ca and .5% Mg. The synthetic fertilizer seem to use Urea quite a bit.


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 23, 2011)

phosphorus is basically needed for specialty things that grow and flower very quickly, with lots of branching and flower buds, like hothouse and fall chrysanthemums. it has been proven at least in trials that may or may not have been published publically. but, if you have a mum that is growing quickly and it's about to get to the stage where it is going to be putting out lots of those branches (and the flower buds are on the ends of those little branches), and you don't have enough basic nitrogen and phosphorus, you will retard branching and subsequently the number of flowers. branches will also be brittle that do form if you don't have enough of phosphorus. so, the recommendation about 'high phosphorus for flowering' for orchids, probably came from the pot plant (flowers etc) market which is where a lot of other recommendations come from. I do have a feeling that for phals and other orchids that do have floral structures like stems and flowers that do grow very quickly, that if phosphorus and basic nitrogen is limiting (not really enough or it's blocked by other elements), then you can have aborting or poor structures or less flowers. Dr. Yin Tung Wang formerly of Texas did show that hybrid phals that didn't have enough general nitrogen did have less flowers. I don't remember if there was a correlation beyond that for phosphorus. I do believe that studies had shown that adding 'extra' phosphorus didn't make more flowers, but having enough of nitrogen and phosphorus was important to support a normal amount. adding more beyond a basic point didn't 'make' more and more flowers; general nutrition was necessary to make a 'normal' amount, and below the basic levels flowering dropped off. I do feel that making sure there is enough phosphorus around before flowering to make sure there is a basic amount is a good idea for very fast forming orchid flower structures, but that's more of an inference from watching things, and the fact that I often don't fertilize alot in the first place. someone that fertilizes a lot (that doesn't have a phosphorus problem because other elements are blocking it's uptake) probably won't have to worry as much about adding 'extra' phosphorus, and adding more and more I don't think will create more flowers


----------



## Stone (Nov 23, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> phosphorus is basically needed for specialty things that grow and flower very quickly, with lots of branching and flower buds, like hothouse and fall chrysanthemums. it has been proven at least in trials that may or may not have been published publically. but, if you have a mum that is growing quickly and it's about to get to the stage where it is going to be putting out lots of those branches (and the flower buds are on the ends of those little branches), and you don't have enough basic nitrogen and phosphorus, you will retard branching and subsequently the number of flowers. branches will also be brittle that do form if you don't have enough of phosphorus. so, the recommendation about 'high phosphorus for flowering' for orchids, probably came from the pot plant (flowers etc) market which is where a lot of other recommendations come from. I do have a feeling that for phals and other orchids that do have floral structures like stems and flowers that do grow very quickly, that if phosphorus and basic nitrogen is limiting (not really enough or it's blocked by other elements), then you can have aborting or poor structures or less flowers. Dr. Yin Tung Wang formerly of Texas did show that hybrid phals that didn't have enough general nitrogen did have less flowers. I don't remember if there was a correlation beyond that for phosphorus. I do believe that studies had shown that adding 'extra' phosphorus didn't make more flowers, but having enough of nitrogen and phosphorus was important to support a normal amount. adding more beyond a basic point didn't 'make' more and more flowers; general nutrition was necessary to make a 'normal' amount, and below the basic levels flowering dropped off. I do feel that making sure there is enough phosphorus around before flowering to make sure there is a basic amount is a good idea for very fast forming orchid flower structures, but that's more of an inference from watching things, and the fact that I often don't fertilize alot in the first place. someone that fertilizes a lot (that doesn't have a phosphorus problem because other elements are blocking it's uptake) probably won't have to worry as much about adding 'extra' phosphorus, and adding more and more I don't think will create more flowers



cnychrarles, I basically agree with all you've said. P is vital but extra P is unnecessary and the levels of P found in some ''bloom boosters'' can be counter-productive. Healthy plants have been found to have P levels 6-15% of N levels in thier tissues.
Chrysanthemum--P/N ratio:0.06-0.17
Phalaenopsis-----P/N ratio:0.20-0.28 That's 20- 28 of P% to N% and that's concidered to be higher than the great majority of species.
I'm holding a packet of African Violet fertilizer with an NPK of 14/15/11.5
That's P at over 100% of N!
Check out the results of this trial (R.T.Poole Foliage Digest 1990)

African Violet.
Fert. Flower number per plant
P/N K/N 

0.14 0.52 4.0
0.44 0.83 2.8


I see the same kind of levels in some orchid bloom boosters


----------



## emydura (Nov 23, 2011)

OK. Rick has broken me down and I will give this low K thing a go. oke:

So I am going to order this Trio fertiliser from Nutri-tech. Two questions.

Firstly, is this the only fertiliser I will need to use? I assume if I alternate with other fertilisers that may have higher K, I will be wasting my time.

Secondly, Nutri-tech sell two variations of this fertiliser - Trio™ (CMB) Foliar and Trio™ (CMB) Fertigate. The former has more Boron. At this stage I am thinking of going with the 2nd option (less Boron) but still applying it as a foliar fertiliser. Do you agree? 

Here is the response from Nutri-tech about the differences between the two -

_"Trio™ (CMB) Foliar 0.25% B, recommended application rate for orchard 5-7 L/ha foliar, 7-10 L/ha fertigation
Trio™ (CMB) Fertigate 0.1% B, recommended application rate for orchard 5-7 L/ha foliar, 7-20 L/ha fertigation

i.e. both products can be foliar applied or fertigated, but they have different amounts of boron in them. Boron is an essential nutrient but it can be toxic if over applied. Trio Fertigate contains less boron, which allows a higher recommended rate when fertigating. You therefore get more of the calcium and magnesium without over doing the boron. In addition to this the Trio Foliar is screened through a 75 micron sieve which ensures that it is suitable for foliar applications."_

David


----------



## emydura (Nov 24, 2011)

The more I think about it, the Boran issue only relates to fertigation and if you intend to fertilise above the recommended rate. As I have no intention to do either it makes more sense to get "Trio™ (CMB) Foliar.

David


----------



## Ozpaph (Nov 24, 2011)

As discussed I rotate.
week 1 - 1/3 dose Miracle grow max feed tomato food + MgSo4 (teaspoon/9L)
week 2 - 1/3 Miracle grow + Calcium Nitrate (teaspoon/9L)
week 3 - Life force Trio
week 4 - Life force total cover

(http://www.scottsaustralia.com.au/Miracle-Gro/Miracle-Gro_for_Tomatoes).

Stephen


----------



## Rick (Nov 24, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> As discussed I rotate.
> week 1 - 1/3 dose Miracle grow max feed tomato food + MgSo4 (teaspoon/9L)
> week 2 - 1/3 Miracle grow + Calcium Nitrate (teaspoon/9L)
> week 3 - Life force Trio
> ...



How long have you had your program going now Stephen?

at 1/3 MG your K is equivalent to 3 with much boosted Ca and Mg. Life Force trio has less than 1% K and tons of Ca. Can't recall the total cover yet.


----------



## emydura (Nov 24, 2011)

Rick said:


> How long have you had your program going now Stephen?
> 
> at 1/3 MG your K is equivalent to 3 with much boosted Ca and Mg. Life Force trio has less than 1% K and tons of Ca. Can't recall the total cover yet.



Here is a breakdown of total cover. It also says you can't use it while your plants are in flower. Given I would have always have Paphs in flower, this would get impractical.

Nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.39%
Phosphorus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.21%
Potassium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.24%
Cobalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 mg/L
Selenium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 mg/L
Molybdenum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 mg/L
Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 mg/L
Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 mg/L
Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1650 mg/L
Boron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1940 mg/L
Manganese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4000 mg/L
Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4240 mg/L
pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8
Specific Gravitiy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.28
Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.5


----------



## emydura (Nov 24, 2011)

Life Force Trio has the following. So Rick, can I use nothing but this or do I need to alternate like Stephen to give my plants everything they need? I can't work out how much P it has. I believe kelp has no P which says to me this fertiliser contains no Phosphorous?

Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0%
Boron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25%
Total Nitrogen (as nitrate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1%
Total Potassium (as organic K) . . . . . . . . . 0.45%
Sodium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1%
Kelp and fulvic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%


----------



## Ray (Nov 25, 2011)

emydura said:


> Here is a breakdown of total cover. It also says you can't use it while your plants are in flower. Given I would have always have Paphs in flower, this would get impractical.
> 
> Nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.39%
> Phosphorus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.21%
> ...


How can those numbers be correct?

4240mg/L is 4.24g/L or 4240 ppm Zn alone.


----------



## Rick (Nov 25, 2011)

emydura said:


> Life Force Trio has the following. So Rick, can I use nothing but this or do I need to alternate like Stephen to give my plants everything they need? I can't work out how much P it has. I believe kelp has no P which says to me this fertiliser contains no Phosphorous?
> 
> Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
> Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0%
> ...



SlipperKing is corresponding with NTS because we don't see any phosphorus.

If it wasn't for the lack of P listed, this would be about what I was after.:wink:
If it really was shy on P, I might use it with a dash of potassium phosphate added.


----------



## Rick (Nov 25, 2011)

Ray said:


> How can those numbers be correct?
> 
> 4240mg/L is 4.24g/L or 4240 ppm Zn alone.



I think they also expect a minimum 100 to 1 dilution for a start.

Zinc is really funny stuff in the toxicity world Ray. It's really sticky around organics and is easily chelated (like nickel) so strongly that even in a "soluble" chelated state, it passes right through cells without being utilized. Kind of like comparing sugar to Splenda. A subtle twist to the molecule still lets it taste the same, but completely useless to the cells as a carbohydrate source. Even waste water bacteria don't recognize it and pass it through as if it was sand.

But under the right conditions (no chelators and a pH close to 8.5) zinc is bad news.


----------



## emydura (Nov 25, 2011)

Rick said:


> SlipperKing is corresponding with NTS because we don't see any phosphorus.
> 
> If it wasn't for the lack of P listed, this would be about what I was after.:wink:
> If it really was shy on P, I might use it with a dash of potassium phosphate added.



I will check with NTS on the P. They respond to me straight away.

I read that you cannot mix postassium phosphate with fertilisers containing Mg and Ca. Therefore they would have to be applied separately.

How is this for an alternative (Life Force Stimulant)? Contains P but no K as far as I can tell. 

http://shop.nutri-tech.com.au/catal...d=190&osCsid=2c74d954f81f3c0748661150a756560b

Available Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5%
Soluble Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Magnesium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3500 ppm
Calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 ppm
Boron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 ppm
Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 ppm
Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 ppm
Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ppm


----------



## Rick (Nov 25, 2011)

emydura said:


> I will check with NTS on the P. They respond to me straight away.
> 
> I read that you cannot mix postassium phosphate with fertilisers containing Mg and Ca. Therefore they would have to be applied separately.
> 
> ...




Well the potash is essentially a synonym for K so it has at least 6% K to it.

I don't know why you cant add K salts to ferts with Ca/Mg. MSU adds monopotasium phosphate with calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate.


----------



## emydura (Nov 25, 2011)

Rick said:


> Well the potash is essentially a synonym for K so it has at least 6% K to it.
> 
> I don't know why you cant add K salts to ferts with Ca/Mg. MSU adds monopotasium phosphate with calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate.



Potash. DOH!!! 

I just read it from this link

http://www.haifachem.com/download/files/multi-mkp_1.pdf

Compatibility

Multi-MKP is compatible with most water-soluble fertilizers, except for fertilizers containing calcium (Ca++) or magnesium (Mg++). To apply Multi-MKP in combination with calcium or magnesium fertilizers, use two fertilizer tanks. If only a single fertilizer tank is available, apply those fertilizers at different times.


----------



## Ozpaph (Nov 25, 2011)

Rick said:


> How long have you had your program going now Stephen?
> 
> at 1/3 MG your K is equivalent to 3 with much boosted Ca and Mg. Life Force trio has less than 1% K and tons of Ca. Can't recall the total cover yet.



Since I started reading your low K info - about 4 months (coming into summer so much less fertilizer over winter).


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 25, 2011)

i know things with sulfur you aren't supposed to mix with things that have calcium (and probably magnesium); I know there is more than that....


----------



## Ozpaph (Nov 25, 2011)

emydura said:


> Here is a breakdown of total cover. It also says you can't use it while your plants are in flower. Given I would have always have Paphs in flower, this would get impractical.
> 
> Nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.39%
> Phosphorus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.21%
> ...



I have no idea why it can't be used for flowering plants - doesn't make sense to me. I use it regardless - will let you know if I have a problem. I dont put in on the flowers - it might stain them.


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 25, 2011)

I think if you are applying to plants with flowers, there might be some phytotoxicity where the flowers could be burned; someone selling flowering plants could then lose a sale crop. if they are just your flowers and you don't mind some burn then it might not matter (especially if you apply to the pot only)


----------



## gonewild (Nov 25, 2011)

emydura said:


> Here is a breakdown of total cover. It also says you can't use it while your plants are in flower. Given I would have always have Paphs in flower, this would get impractical.



Does it say you "can't" use it while plants are in flower? Or does it recommend that you don't?


----------



## Rick (Nov 25, 2011)

emydura said:


> Potash. DOH!!!
> 
> I just read it from this link
> 
> ...



Sulfate and Phosphate salts of calcium have relatively poor solubility. If you add a ton of soluble sulfate (say from sodium sulfate) to a high pH solution of (say calcium hydroxide) you'll get a bunch of insoluble gypsum formation.

But for hobby MSU you go from dry components to the final dilution in one shot, so it melts just fine without precipitation of anything.

If I was going to add potassium phosphate to the Life force Trio stuff, I would add it after its been diluted in my pump sprayer.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 25, 2011)

I'm almost sold on the low K diet, Rick.... I grow mostly Catt. and Plueuro. alliance plants with only a few Phrags and two Paph(so far). I think I'll wait for spring to come around before I go full bore into low K diet. I definitely enjoy reading your(and others) post on the subject and all others for that matter..... 

It's my understanding that MSU did do leaf analysts when they devised there fertilizer? If so, How could they be so wrong on the K?


----------



## Stone (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> I'm almost sold on the low K diet, Rick.... I grow mostly Catt. and Plueuro. alliance plants with only a few Phrags and two Paph(so far). I think I'll wait for spring to come around before I go full bore into low K diet. I definitely enjoy reading your(and others) post on the subject and all others for that matter.....
> 
> It's my understanding that MSU did do leaf analysts when they devised there fertilizer? If so, How could they be so wrong on the K?



Hi Keithrs. Rick is no doubt asleep and dreaming of wooden baskets or some such at the moment but I think I remember that he mentioned looking at some data on tropical forests having tree foliage K levels much lower than in temperate areas. Also that Ca was as high or higher than K? due to the fact that they grow on K-poor limestone derived soils.
Also I'm wondering about P. delenatii growing on granitic soils which are high in K. I think, therefore shouldn't this species enjoy a more ''normal'' K level?


----------



## emydura (Nov 26, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Does it say you "can't" use it while plants are in flower? Or does it recommend that you don't?




_Dilute at 10 mL per litre and cover leaf surface. Do not apply during flowering._

The message relates only to foliar fertilisation. I think OzPaph is fertilising through the potting mix so it wouldn't relate to him.

David


----------



## Ozpaph (Nov 26, 2011)

emydura said:


> _Dilute at 10 mL per litre and cover leaf surface. Do not apply during flowering._
> 
> The message relates only to foliar fertilisation. I think OzPaph is fertilising through the potting mix so it wouldn't relate to him.
> 
> David



yes, I watering can the plants, not the flowers.


----------



## emydura (Nov 26, 2011)

Ozpaph said:


> yes, I watering can the plants, not the flowers.



The difference is that in foliar fertilisation, the concentration of fertiliser is much higher plus the plant can absorb the fertiliser much more efficiently and faster. I assume this may burn the flowers. I wonder if this may affect the buds as well?

David


----------



## Roth (Nov 26, 2011)

Some points:

- Plants can extract more of a specific ion than the ratio supplied. So if you supply K at half the quantity of Ca, the plant still can take two times more K than Ca. Chromium is another extreme example, plants can really become intoxicated quickly, and it is irreversible. They will take whatever they can find under the soluble form for chromium.

- Rick point, and thinking about it it matches some things I got in the past..., is that some plants cannot stop taking K from their environment, up to a detrimental level. Especially if Ca and Mg are deficient.

- Orchids have different foliar analysis than most ornamental crops, for most popular genera. 

- So Rick idea was to lower the availability of K at the plant roots so they do not get intoxicated, and raise the Ca and Mg, which are divalent cations ( K is a monovalent cation).

- I think that soluble or insoluble has not much matter for most plants, as long as the insoluble compound is in contact with the root or the active root tip. Qutie a few plants are able to dissolve compounds at their roots, would be very long to explain, but that's a fact.

- Phytotoxicity symptoms charts are useless for orchids. I learned it the hard way, some 'nonmobile' compounds can move, and some mobile compounds will not move. Zinc is not supposed to move too much, but it can be translocated from the old leaves to the new ones, giving... potassium deficiency symptoms. It happened to me in the early days, and thinking of it, when I gave potassium nitrate to the plants, they were screwed at light speed. Iron is supposedly used in the new growths, but it can move to the old leaves, and make phytotoxicity symptoms in the old leaves, whilst still be deficient in the new leaves. It is very complicated, and requires many analysis. Orchids are slow growing, unlike rice or lettuces, so they can move, slowly but surely, things from the old parts to the new ones, or the opposite. Which ions they can move and which they can't remain a mystery until today...

- As for the fertilizers, they are made basically of a few chemical salts, packaged differently and that's all. Some organic fertilizers or special fertilizers can incorporate kelp, citric acid, others additives to enhance the solubility or availability of the macros and micros, or supply directly available food to the plants ( such as amino acids).

- The 'not to mix with calcium nitrate' recommendations or that style apply to professional growers who use a dosatron or similar. They mix the fertilizer in very concentrate form ( something like 1kg/10L for some nurseries) and a pump dilutes it. If you make your final fertilizer, providing the compounds are dissolved properly, you can add pretty much everything together in the final tank. This said, you better use it VERY quickly. I know as a fact too from tank analysis that calcium nitrate and Peters 20-20-20 end up in insoluble calcium and very low levels of phosphorus after a couple of days. If you mix and apply immediately, there should be a minimal loss ( especially depending on the pH. At the old 5.7 standard, there is little risk, but if you use ProTekt to raise the pH to let's say 6.5, you will have a precipitate, maybe invisible, but it will be there. Same if you tank mix calcium nitrate and a NPK fertilizer, the raise the pH. A part will become insoluble molecules, at molecular level, so there is little chance of seeing those by the naked eye)

- To raise the phosphate content, I would not use potassium phosphate ( there are 3 different ones BTW...). I use always MAP, monoammonium phosphate. In fact my use of 10-52-10 is similar to the use of MAP with a bit of potassium nitrate and oligos.

- Many people got very good results with the MSU, because at the same N concentration ( let's say 100ppm), MSU supplies way higher rates of micronutrients than a commercial standard, old style fertilizer. So when using MSU, it helped to supply the micronutrients at a proper level, whilst not overdosing the NPK... After, that's another story. I could never maintain plants with MSU alone, and they did very poorly. It is related to their all nitrate policy. Rick uses kelp, I use ammonium phosphate straight, and sometimes things like peptone, and we do not have any problems with way different setups. In both cases, we add ammonium or ammonia to the system, eventually amino acids.




- Rick should really investigate the Asian pots for orchids. In Asia, they have black plastic pots with a net at the bottom like that:







My main concern against using baskets is when it will be time to repot. Most likely there will be broken roots, etc... and a plastic pot like that would help to maintain high aeration, but with the roots inside the pot...

Overall, for the hydroponics companies ( we have many dealing in cannabis growers as well in Europe), they have some very fine product. However I would never use them, because 

* First I do not know what's inside. As an example, Jerry's Grow was wonderful, but when it went out of stock, it started to be a major mess for people who used it for years. The methanol enhanced the penetrations of some ions, and changed the plant metabolism. As long as the plants were fed that way, all was fine. When it was stopped, plants could go down very quickly. Another example in Europe, some of those hydro products contains hormons, some rare compounds that are indeed enhancing plant growth for some specific crops, like spermidin, triacontanol, etc... Some plants like it, some will definitely have a very adverse reaction. In some cases it can doom the plants.

* Second I don't know if it is going to be available for long or not, or if they will 'improve' the formulation at a later point, which requires retesting, and maybe worse results for our orchids.

and when you stop using them, the plants cannot make it properly.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> It's my understanding that MSU did do leaf analysts when they devised there fertilizer? If so, How could they be so wrong on the K?



It's a matter of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The action of making an observation changes the nature of the observation being made.

MSU wasn't designed on the basis of leaf tissue composition of wild plants sampled in the field but on GH propagated plants (good looking ones) already feeding on present commercial foods. I believe the leaf tissue data base was also based on hybrid phales too (but that could be a poor recollection). But I found a similar study conducted by a university in Belgium on "optimization" of fertilizer for commercial phale propagation that came out pretty much the same as MSU. 

The presumption was that if it looks good in the GH then what must be going into (and retained) by the plant is ideal.

As Roth has pointed out (verified by my searches) there is very limited and fragmentary leaf tissue data on wild orchids. The data he has presented is considerably different from the MSU data. This is why I went to the generic leaf litter data for rain forests, and nutrient flux studies on rainforests. Even then it gets fragmentary. One person only studies NPK, a different one NP Ca/Mg, another one P_Ca_Mg...... Finding studies that covered the whole mess in one shot were like finding diamonds in a coal mine.

But then once you get a handful of concurrence you find that "plants is plants" +/- 20%. Which means just about all plants are pretty much the same physiology wise (as homo sapiens are all pretty much the same in physiology), but with subtle tolerances and specialties.

So then I went back to the general agriculture literature (follow the $$$$) which is where all the true plant physiology research happens, and you start getting the idea of how/why ferts are used and for what purposes.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

Stone said:


> Hi Keithrs. Rick is no doubt asleep and dreaming of wooden baskets or some such at the moment but I think I remember that he mentioned looking at some data on tropical forests having tree foliage K levels much lower than in temperate areas. Also that Ca was as high or higher than K? due to the fact that they grow on K-poor limestone derived soils.
> Also I'm wondering about P. delenatii growing on granitic soils which are high in K. I think, therefore shouldn't this species enjoy a more ''normal'' K level?



Kind of:

The leaf litter data I was able to find (multiple papers) did cover other soil types besides karst limestone. One paper on ultramorphic serpentine (a high Mg, low Ca, lower K system) as well as some data on granitic. Pretty much all the same with Ca generally higher than K, and Mg usually ~ equal to K. Because this was leaf litter data its homogenized for multiple tree and epiphyte species. The paper on the serpentine did break down individual composition for about 20+ tree species (which came out about the same to their dismay). You'll note in Roth's previous post the point I've been making that plants (especially orchids) are able to selectively accumulate nutrients at levels higher than background. The serpentine paper (from Puerto Rico forests) demonstrated that despite the low background Ca, plants were cycling up higher Ca ratios than Mg even though Mg was more prevalent in the geology.

Rothschildianum, hookerae, dayanum, are paphs found in association with serpentine geology in Borneo. In the days I believed that all the premise of MSU were correct, I never considered the importance of Ca to these species, and my long term results were poor (although short term seemed good). Now using a high Ca low K system for the above species that have survived my old ways are showing greatly improved growth and quality.

Anyway getting back to granite and delenatii (gratrixianum too for that matter). Bioavailability of K in granitic soils is poor, just like the availability of silica is from sand. The limited leaf litter data over granitic systems doesn't show appreciably different from that over limestone. Both delenatii and gratrixianum are in my collection, and both have improved dramatically since I started questioning the need for improving Ca/Mg.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

Roth said:


> - Rick should really investigate the Asian pots for orchids. In Asia, they have black plastic pots with a net at the bottom like that:
> 
> 
> My main concern against using baskets is when it will be time to repot. Most likely there will be broken roots, etc... and a plastic pot like that would help to maintain high aeration, but with the roots inside the pot...



I do have a few pots like these Xavier. I also have a TON of the Rand's style aircone pots. In a few cases I am getting better growth in the baskets than even aircone pots. I even drilled more holes into a few of them and still baskets are better (keeping media type the same). However I am experimenting with a few plants going back to a bark or CHC mix in pots now going to a low K fertilizer system, and getting some good results so far too.

It's kind of interesting that roth, stonei, gigantifolium, and sanderianum went to basket culture very well, while supardii and kolopakingii took to it a little more grudgingly (but now finally seem to have the hang of it). I think they are a bit more seasonal on when they want to put out roots, or more sensitive to disturbance in general.

With the wood baskets, my strategy is not to "repot" until the basket is so rotted the plant is falling out. And at that time I will just dump the mess into a larger basket (removing what debris comes out easy) and go on from there. This is kind of what I do now for Bulbos and other things that I have used wood baskets (doesn't work for plastic!) for many years.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

Chemical composition

A worldwide average of the chemical composition of granite, by weight percent:[5]
The Stawamus Chief is a granite monolith in British Columbia

SiO2 — 72.04% (silica)
Al2O3 — 14.42% (alumina)
K2O — 4.12%
Na2O — 3.69%
CaO — 1.82%
FeO — 1.68%
Fe2O3 — 1.22%
MgO — 0.71%
TiO2 — 0.30%
P2O5 — 0.12%
MnO — 0.05%

Based on 2485 analyses

Got this out of Wikipedia.

The amount of K in granite rock is very low. Mostly just silica. Now if you find high Feldspar granite that will have a higher K composition (but still not very available to plants). In general the granitic soils are low pH and general even lower in nutrients than soils over limestone. 

In some ways this tracks general stream productivity for aquatic systems in karst regions compared to granitic regions.

http://www.cheshireconservation.org/Services/Soil

Here's an extension link explaining why New Hampshire's granitic soils are nutrient impoverished compared to Vermonts soils on metamorphic rock.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> How could they be so wrong on the K?



Partially because its not 100% wrong. In fact if you have an adult plant in fresh mix and other access to Ca and Mg, and if you only water during the AM, and don't fertilize in the winter, and use pesticides and fungicides, and cut flower spikes on single growth plants....... you can get good results. At least for the first few years. At this point if it fails to grow or die we always come up with a zillion excuses other than nutrition.

It's kind of like feeding cows corn instead of grass. Yes they grow faster and fatter, but they are more susceptible to disease and damage, and you are going to eat them at the end of 2 years.

I also looked at K consumption usage recommendations from the K industry itself.

They will also tell you the amount of K needed (based on biomass per unit area) for annual crops is orders of magnitude higher than for perennial fruit and nut crops. I also looked at the recommendations for pecan growers for the State of Georgia county extension service which indicates no K supplementation at all.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 26, 2011)

So could it be that K levels have build up so high in the plants that have been using MSU or high K for years and now there going to low K fertilizer and seeing improvement because the plants are using the excess K and bringing them down to levels manageable but the plant...... Plus the huge boost in Ca and Mg to support the function of photosynthesis..... 

Kinda like an slightly overweight person that decides there not pretty/handsome enough and go on a diet and exercise to get rid of the excess energy stored in the there body. As soon as the person starts exercising, They feel great.... There using all that excess energy because there taking in less then what there body needs. There eating what the dietitian whats them to eat....No more, No less.... There felling like there pretty/handsome.... Everything is handy dandy.... Than one day someone realize that the dietitian was way under nourishing the person to levels that effect there health..... They still fell ok but there health is starting to suffer... Then one day they start that fast down hill decline. 

May main concern is what happens years from now? Is this what happening?!?... Time well tell...

I have not seen any wild plants in person but pics that I have seen aren't the greatest growing plants.... Is that what we what to strive for? I would think that you could feed a bit more then what is in the wild.... Maybe not to the levels that MSU is at K wise. I would think that 3-6 K would be fine if you had the right amount of Ca/Mg and other micro and macro elements, light and other environmental elements to support proper function of the plants metabolism.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 26, 2011)

Rick said:


> It's a matter of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The action of making an observation changes the nature of the observation being made.
> 
> MSU wasn't designed on the basis of leaf tissue composition of wild plants sampled in the field but on GH propagated plants (good looking ones) already feeding on present commercial foods. I believe the leaf tissue data base was also based on hybrid phales too (but that could be a poor recollection). But I found a similar study conducted by a university in Belgium on "optimization" of fertilizer for commercial phale propagation that came out pretty much the same as MSU.
> 
> The presumption was that if it looks good in the GH then what must be going into (and retained) by the plant is ideal.



And MSU was designed with commercial production in mind and not necessarily long term plant health. The ideal goal of MSU fertilizer is to grow a plant as fast as possible into an attractive plant that can be sold...after that MSU's job is done.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 26, 2011)

emydura said:


> _Dilute at 10 mL per litre and cover leaf surface. Do not apply during flowering._
> 
> The message relates only to foliar fertilisation. I think OzPaph is fertilising through the potting mix so it wouldn't relate to him.
> 
> David



There is a common belief or assumption that raising the Phosphorous level will induce flowering. Whether it is true or not the fertilizer industry has established that concept. So it is easy to make the assumption that once a plant is in flower you don't need the high P level any longer as the plant supposedly is entering another phase of growth. So they put on the label "Do not apply during flowering".

Now why would they really want to make people think this? 
Simple answer.... Marketing.
Stop using the high Phosphorous bag of fertilizer and go buy a different formula to use while the plant is in bloom. That way they have sold you twice as much product as you actually need.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> How could they be so wrong on the K?



If you look at these two plants you would think they are right.





My hirsutissimum and exul I've been growing since 2001/2002. However since since I started Ca/Mg supplementing a couple years ago the individual plants are 20% bigger with much better color and leaf substance. I also have no more erwinia problems with the exul.

But they didn't get it right for these seedling hirsutisimum (out of flask 01/2010):
This is the second flask of these I've worked with and already 5X bigger than the last ones ever got before they all crapped out over 3 year time period.




Or these :


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> So could it be that K levels have build up so high in the plants that have been using MSU or high K for years and now there going to low K fertilizer and seeing improvement because the plants are using the excess K and bringing them down to levels manageable but the plant...... Plus the huge boost in Ca and Mg to support the function of photosynthesis.....



If all you work with is adult plants you may get that impression, but I'm also comparing results with seedlings that are fully involved in the program.





keithrs said:


> I have not seen any wild plants in person but pics that I have seen aren't the greatest growing plants.... Is that what we what to strive for? I would think that you could feed a bit more then what is in the wild.... Maybe not to the levels that MSU is at K wise. I would think that 3-6 K would be fine if you had the right amount of Ca/Mg and other micro and macro elements, light and other environmental elements to support proper function of the plants metabolism.



Need to look at a lot more pics. I've seen plenty posted on this site that make our GH plants put to shame. Of the top some monster Phrag besseae and then some pics of giant randsii (a species most can't even keep alive).

I get both Orchids Mag and Orchid Digest. Lots of insitu pics (Cattleyas used as hedgerow's!) in the tropics. Besides a couple leaf nibbles I don't think there is a shortage of plants doing OK in the rainforests (as long as they aren't getting mowed down for timber or palm oil plantations).


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

It's kind of funny on the resistance I see to this issue.

I put my brain to this topic in response to the shortcomings and outright failures realized in my own and others programs. Not to the successes.

I'm not trying to changes anyone's mind that is perfectly satisfied with the results they are getting with their program, but offering an alternative solution to the frequent and recurring problems many of us (including myself) seem to have.

Also after growing for 10 years and experiencing the same problems as everyone else and really get no solutions or no results from the same old solutions that its time for something radical (going back to nature)

What's that old expression about doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome??


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> Kinda like an slightly overweight person that decides there not pretty/handsome enough and go on a diet and exercise to get rid of the excess energy stored in the there body. As soon as the person starts exercising, They feel great.... There using all that excess energy because there taking in less then what there body needs. There eating what the dietitian whats them to eat....No more, No less.... There felling like there pretty/handsome.... Everything is handy dandy.... Than one day someone realize that the dietitian was way under nourishing the person to levels that effect there health..... They still fell ok but there health is starting to suffer... Then one day they start that fast down hill decline.



Never seen anything on the health benefits of obesity to support this.
I've also not heard of malnourished people who "feel OK" but are in declining health. I've also never heard of a credible dietician who has prescribed anyone into starvation.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 26, 2011)

Rick, I'm trying to discredit your findings or your thoughts.... I hope thats not the way your taking it.... I do believe your on to something though question have to be asked on something thats 180 from the norm. There is little to support this concept. Being fairly new to orchids (2-3 years) I have lots to learn and experience. I posed those questions to see what yours and other thoughts where... not for you think I was resisting what you have found. 

I was using the analogy for hypothetical reasoning...... My half-sister went from 170 down to 89 pound in 6 months..... though she did not die..... she did suffer heart problems.... She saids that she felt better at 89 then at 170 even though she started have heart and stomach problems .... The point being that one will not tell you exactly how they feel intel problems arise.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 26, 2011)

Rick said:


> If all you work with is adult plants you may get that impression, but I'm also comparing results with seedlings that are fully involved in the program.



Very good point...... So are you trying your program on other alliances? 



> Need to look at a lot more pics. I've seen plenty posted on this site that make our GH plants put to shame. Of the top some monster Phrag besseae and then some pics of giant randsii (a species most can't even keep alive).



Your right!!!!! There some great videos of besseas in here natural habit on you tube done by the folks at Ecuagenra.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> Rick, I'm trying to discredit your findings or your thoughts.... I hope thats not the way your taking it.... I do believe your on to something though question have to be asked on something thats 180 from the norm.



No I didn't think so or take it that way from either you or anyone else Keithrs, but I am surprised on how much defense I'm seeing for a system that produces so many complaints.

I think it is a human nature thing to look at each problem as unrelated/disconnected from a bigger picture, and to treat for symptoms rather than causes.

Here's another one that will blow your mind! Persistent mealy/scale bug issues are another symptom of high K fertilizing.

K is primarily used for the production of starches / sugars in plants. A lot of the Ca (that high K blocks) goes into cell wall thickening making leaves tougher and thicker. K (and sugars) are generally found in higher concentrations in roots and flowers. In food crops K is highest in roots, tubers, fruits and seeds.

Sucking bugs are really going for the carbs. So as you allow the plant to get big and soft and sweet, you make the plant more conducive and nutritious for pests. Tougher happier bugs are tougher to eradicate and take more and more effort and chemicals to control.

I'm seeing less and less mealies, and requiring less and less bug spray as leaves get bigger and harder. Most mealie action now is on big flower sprays and the old leaves of my Catts. 

My Phrag pearcii were both mealie magnets and poster children for leaf tip burn. Leaf tip burn is almost nonexistent now, and mealies are getting sparse.


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> Very good point...... So are you trying your program on other alliances?



The whole collection. Have a bit of everything.

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21848&highlight=Dendrobium

Here's a thread I started on a new Dendro. superbiens I just got this spring. Note before and after leaf color of the new growth.

Apparently this is an Aussie native. When I googled around on this species I found wild pics of this plant over 6 feet tall! 

You might enjoy the search function. I use it lots to see what I might have missed from individual members or what's been said for different species or topics.


----------



## Stone (Nov 26, 2011)

gonewild said:


> There is a common belief or assumption that raising the Phosphorous level will induce flowering. Whether it is true or not the fertilizer industry has established that concept. So it is easy to make the assumption that once a plant is in flower you don't need the high P level any longer as the plant supposedly is entering another phase of growth. So they put on the label "Do not apply during flowering".
> 
> Now why would they really want to make people think this?
> Simple answer.... Marketing.
> Stop using the high Phosphorous bag of fertilizer and go buy a different formula to use while the plant is in bloom. That way they have sold you twice as much product as you actually need.



Very true Lance, The use of high P is a hangover from when potted plants were grown in soil. A lot of the P became tied up in the clay colloids and became unavailable so they had to poor it on to get results. This doesn't happen in organic media.


----------



## Stone (Nov 26, 2011)

keithrs said:


> > I have not seen any wild plants in person but pics that I have seen aren't the greatest growing plants....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Nov 26, 2011)

Rick have you tried fertilizing with only.... 

Calcium Nitrate + Mag Sulfate + micros

Assuming the plants may get all the P and K needed from the media?


----------



## Rick (Nov 26, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Rick have you tried fertilizing with only....
> 
> Calcium Nitrate + Mag Sulfate + micros
> 
> Assuming the plants may get all the P and K needed from the media?



I've been thinking about this for a winter option, but haven't made the plunge so far. I did shred a bunch of leaves from my front yard (plus sand and perlite). Mostly oak, and I live over shallow karst. There are a few native orchids in the area including Cyp pubescens. I potted up a few callosum, suk', and lowii seedlings, and plan on just dilute well water to see what happens. Are you going to try anything special? I'm getting maxed out on ideas and programs!

I have a micro solution at work for our algae cultures, but just thinking about it, I probably have a handful of the micro species in my well water anyway at very low levels. At least iron, manganese, and silicates. Copper is fairly common at micro doses too.

Actually the whole algae culture solution is a 5 part thing we make from scratch, which includes everything we've been talking about, so the above suggestion is Parts 1, 4, and 5. (part 2 is K phosphate, and part 3 is sodium bicarb). The micro solution (part 1) is a bugger to make! We make up new batches every 6 months whether or not we run out, so maybe I'll scam some left overs.


----------



## Cochlopetalum (Nov 27, 2011)

I would like to thank you Rick. I find this threads totaly fascinating. I had a lot of diffuse problems with my plants, both Paphs and Hoya plants. Things like intervenal chlorosis, pale borders of the leaves, weak flower stalks and a lot's of mite's. The problems have been some what diffuse and most off my forgiving Cochlos are flowering and growing well. I just miss that realy healty look and I had problems with saving struggling plants ( I bought). Many of the cochlos I buy, have problems with there rots and i struggle to get them back to healt. I tried different fertilisers the last 7 years, trying to find the one kind that works. The only thing that realy made any differens was when I added bonemeal as a toppdress. Now I blame most of my problems on excessive K.


----------



## Rick (Nov 27, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Rick have you tried fertilizing with only....
> 
> Calcium Nitrate + Mag Sulfate + micros
> 
> Assuming the plants may get all the P and K needed from the media?



What I did do (a few times but nothing I'd consider a trial), was to take 1/4 tsp of EPSOMA peletized lime and disolve it in a gallon of water.

Since I did this in RO water and checked pH and hardness, It will give you soft water at a neutral pH. It doesn't completely dissolve and leaves a little sand like residue (probably good as a lime top dress). This will give you Ca and Mg boost, but no nitrogen aid, which I think is pretty important to give.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 27, 2011)

So as far as K ppm's.... What would you recommend? 

Did you notice any benefits in disease control with the lime?


----------



## keithrs (Nov 27, 2011)

I wonder if a low k diet would change how we do winter rest?


----------



## likespaphs (Nov 27, 2011)

keithrs said:


> I wonder if a low k diet would change how we do winter rest?




did you just call me fat?
:rollhappy:


----------



## Rick (Nov 27, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> did you just call me fat?
> :rollhappy:



Only if you spell carbs' with a K Brianoke:oke:

I think I need more pie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that P supplementation


----------



## Rick (Nov 27, 2011)

keithrs said:


> So as far as K ppm's.... What would you recommend?
> 
> Did you notice any benefits in disease control with the lime?



I haven't come up with an absolute minimum yet, but I think less than 5ppm would be fine for frequent use.

That would be about 1/20th the going rate of MSU 12_6_13. Right now I'm probably at 20-25 ppm.

Several of us have seen decreases in the frequency and virulence of Erwinia infections. One of the papers I've been promoting demonstrate that (in beans or other garden crops) that resistance to disease (both Erwinia and Botrytus) goes up considerably as the K concentration in leaf tissue goes down and the Ca concentration goes up.


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 27, 2011)

this all sounds very good. others have reminded that certain commercial fertilizer preps that many of us use or have used, are for pot plants/flowers that will be grown on to small size and shipped out somewhere. usually these plants need to be kept compact, and one thing I remember a consultant we had with a previous owner had stated was that controlling some nutrient conditions could help keep plants shorter, without using as many growth regulators. it could be that the potassium is upped in these formulations to help try to 'control' growth by the things rick has been describing. this would indicate that if we want our plants to not have this negative growth situation then we should limit k for our orchids (unless we want to keep them short and compact)


----------



## Rick (Nov 27, 2011)

keithrs said:


> I wonder if a low k diet would change how we do winter rest?



I think winter rest is different for everyone, and the need varies for so many different species.

My concept is a general decrease in all water and temps rather than just a slow down of feeding while keeping watering at a set rate.

There are a few things (like the handful of Dendrobiums and some deciduous terrestrial species) in my collection that I would say really get a big drop in watering. I do a general decrease in feeding too, and tend to tie it more to the decrease in sunny days that happens during TN winters. But I haven't really finalized a summer diet and a winter diet quite yet.


----------



## Rick (Nov 27, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> this all sounds very good. others have reminded that certain commercial fertilizer preps that many of us use or have used, are for pot plants/flowers that will be grown on to small size and shipped out somewhere. usually these plants need to be kept compact, and one thing I remember a consultant we had with a previous owner had stated was that controlling some nutrient conditions could help keep plants shorter, without using as many growth regulators. it could be that the potassium is upped in these formulations to help try to 'control' growth by the things rick has been describing. this would indicate that if we want our plants to not have this negative growth situation then we should limit k for our orchids (unless we want to keep them short and compact)



Not sure if high K has been used as foliage growth regulator rather than just something that can get plants to fruiting/flowering faster at the expense of foliage growth. Going by the "follow the $$concept" most fertilizers / feeding strategy has been developed for the sake of food crops. This area of agri/hort gets the lion share of research$, and the most prevalent focus is to get the most edible component in the shortest amount of time with the least waste. Everyone else (the flower market) just goes for the ride and adapts to the handmedowns from the food production boys (MSU as a result). But since plants are plants, 80% of what works for food crops will work for everyone else (especially with adaptations).


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 27, 2011)

what we use for wholesale plant production has been designed for floral and not food production

* edit - I have to correct that they aren't used for outdoor farm food production, but I do remember from the labels that they can/are used for hydroponic irrigation which does include food production, though I believe many more flowers are produced with the fertilizer than lettuce leaves


----------



## Rick (Nov 27, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> what we use for wholesale plant production has been designed for floral and not food production



How much different is it from any of the 1000 "standard" formulas developed for corn in the 1950's?


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 27, 2011)

look through a fertilizer catalog, there are dozens and dozens of different things listed. to say one is the same as other is funny. as stated before, many are just styled and marketed without need of plant. most of the things we use are either geared recently for stable solutions for seedlings, or for poinsettias etc often styled to be the same as or like greencare ferts designed for the specifications of certain cutting and seedling growers who sell to wholesale markets. they aren't corn fertilizer


----------



## Rick (Nov 27, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> look through a fertilizer catalog, there are dozens and dozens of different things listed. to say one is the same as other is funny. as stated before, many are just styled and marketed without need of plant. most of the things we use are either geared recently for stable solutions for seedlings, or for poinsettias etc often styled to be the same as or like greencare ferts designed for the specifications of certain cutting and seedling growers who sell to wholesale markets. they aren't corn fertilizer



http://www.carrtracks.com/fertlzr.htm

Which reinforces Growilds position, that if you can't make enough money selling fertilizer for crops, you start inventing "novel" fertilizer schemes and packaging to justify extra $$$ for all the niche markets.

There really is no single fert for corn either. It's all just NPK you talk to an ag extension person and say "I want to grow ABC". He dials in your soil and water quality and tells you how much NPK you need. How you get there is up to you. You can build your own N,P,K from individual components or find an off the shelf blend from one of the catalogs. It may turn out that the ultimate fert for corn in Farmer Johns field in SW Iowa may turn out to be the new hot fert for GH Poinsettias.

But is Farmer John now relying on the cutting edge research of the poinsettia industry? No he's still using all the research done on food crops going back to the late 1800's. I would even say that if it wasn't for all the $$ plowed into understanding food crops, the flower folks wouldn't even have a building to set up a lab in the first place.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 27, 2011)

Rick said:


> Are you going to try anything special? I'm getting maxed out on ideas and programs!



I can't right now as I have sold off most of my plants in preparation to move back to Peru. Once there I will.



> I have a micro solution at work for our algae cultures, but just thinking about it, I probably have a handful of the micro species in my well water anyway at very low levels. At least iron, manganese, and silicates. Copper is fairly common at micro doses too.
> 
> Actually the whole algae culture solution is a 5 part thing we make from scratch, which includes everything we've been talking about, so the above suggestion is Parts 1, 4, and 5. (part 2 is K phosphate, and part 3 is sodium bicarb). The micro solution (part 1) is a bugger to make! We make up new batches every 6 months whether or not we run out, so maybe I'll scam some left overs.



I have used this mix in my aquarium. Plantex CSM+ Boron 
I think it might be a source for adding micros to a dry fertilizer mix. I don't know how well the ratios are but don't think it should cause any issues. (@Rick, I have some of this left I would be happy to send you if you want to try it.)

Maybe just using Calcium Nitrate for all the nitrogen and calcium with MagSulfate and micros in a liquid mix. Find a simi-soluable source for potassium and phosphorous that will release only tiny amounts over a long time. This could be either mixed in the media or top dressed. But along the lines of this idea to lower the amount of K maybe there already is enough from the media anyway.

Years ago when we grew commercially we would at times not have enough money to buy a load of fertilizer components. (We made our own liquid mixes and bought components by the ton). There was a period of time when we ran out of potassium nitrate and phos acid (both were very expensive) so I just used Calcium Nitrate, Mag sulfate, Iron, and micros. Actually everything grew very well and it made me wonder why we needed to use the expensive K and P. At the time I was very young and when we had some money in the bank went back to using all the "good" stuff. Now that you are seeing good results from the low or no potassium I think you are on to something and if I had plants now I would follow your ideas and go for the concept. When I get back to Peru I want to take some soil water samples from the "media of wild orchids and test to see what the K and P levels are. 

Just need to find some components that are simple to work with.


----------



## Stone (Nov 27, 2011)

Just a couple of points.
Rain water has been shown to contain sometimes high levels (often higher levels than ocean water) of disolved elements picked up from the sea and air- bourne dust during storms (monsoons,hurricanes etc.).
These minerals including Na, Ca, and K are then depostited over forests in the rain. If this is the case, and given that we know that plants can acumulate levels of K beyond luxury levels more easily than they can Ca., Where is all the K that must have been arriving over these areas during the past billion years?

Rick, the data you speak about is concerning dead leaf litter? Heavy rain can leach K from humus. Do you have any info on live tissues? It seems we are only going to know the REAL nutritional reqirements of Paphs if someone goes out into various habitats and analyizes healthy wild paph leaves in at least 2 different eco systems. (limestone and non limestone) After all we have all seen good specimens of paphs grown in such a wide variety of mixes and fertilizer regimes that we are stuck with speculation.

Roth seems to have access to wild collected plants?

I'm not saying, I'm just saying

Mike.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 27, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> look through a fertilizer catalog, there are dozens and dozens of different things listed. to say one is the same as other is funny. as stated before, many are just styled and marketed without need of plant. most of the things we use are either geared recently for stable solutions for seedlings, or for poinsettias etc often styled to be the same as or like greencare ferts designed for the specifications of certain cutting and seedling growers who sell to wholesale markets. they aren't corn fertilizer



I had a good friend who worked at Purdue University and UC Davis in plant nutrition research during the 50's and 60's. He told me a story that pertains directly to fertilizer labels and why we should not rely on what they claim to be good for. Here is a short version...

A company that was making fertilizer for home use retail sales (Miracle ****) called him on the phone one day and asked if their new fertilizer formula (30-10-10?) would be good to use on house plants. He told them that in his opinion it would be good. Soon after the company launched a National advertising campaign introducing the new revolutionary fertilizer for house plants. In bold print on the label it said "Recommended by Purdue University"! The fertilizer company made a lot of money and my friend nearly lost his job, neither Purdue University nor my friend actually recommended it . The moral of the story is that labels are put on fertilizer packages to help sell fertilizer and not necessarily to tell you what is best for your plants.


----------



## Rick (Nov 28, 2011)

Stone said:


> J
> 
> Rick, the data you speak about is concerning dead leaf litter? Heavy rain can leach K from humus. Do you have any info on live tissues? It seems we are only going to know the REAL nutritional reqirements of Paphs if someone goes out into various habitats and analyizes healthy wild paph leaves in at least 2 different eco systems. (limestone and non limestone) After all we have all seen good specimens of paphs grown in such a wide variety of mixes and fertilizer regimes that we are stuck with speculation.
> 
> ...



Actually both in bits and pieces. One of the leaf litter papers collected (via collection traps) fresh surface leaf litter every month (so not mega dead/leached from the bottom of the pile. This paper also correlated the rainfall data to determine if some months were seeing higher"leaching" effects. The focus of the paper was on total nutrient flux in rain forest ecosystems, and compared to some other rain forest local too (as a gross check). So they also looked at nutrients in rainfall, nutrients from soil geology, nutrients in water washing down through the trees into the forest floor.

In this paper the amount of nutrients from air borne sources was negligible. The primary flux was recycle through the biomass.

Other less detailed papers on nutrient flux I've read also have rain values with very low nutrient levels. I've never seen rain levels saltier than ocean water. The only way you could get this is for rain to flow through a salt pile or other significant surface accumulation.

There's two ways to look at the leaf litter data. 1) that's what is ending up staying in the plants from whatever geological sources, or 2) if you are a paph growing in humus cracks or leaf litter on the forest floor, then that is what you have available.

Roth has some fragmentary leaf tissue analysis, for wild collected paphs, and for the handful of data he has posted in previous threads, it still supports that wild paphs are not full of K. Ca is still higher than K.


----------



## Rick (Nov 28, 2011)

Stone said:


> Where is all the K that must have been arriving over these areas during the past billion years?
> 
> Mike.



There are small amounts in all geologies (larger amounts in feldspar, but most of it not readily available).

90 some odd % of this K is constantly being recycled by the plants themselves. Remember that before people mined rare deposits of high K rock (like greensand), K for crop fertilization was derived from wood ashes. The term potash goes back (I think even to ancient Greece) of burn ashes soaked in pots to extract the K (although at that time they didn't know it was potassium they were extracting from the wood ashes.

I mentioned a paper on leaf tissue analysis and physio mechanisms of epiphytic plants (done on bromiliads, but the authors extrapolated to all epiphytes, including orchids). This paper is the one demonstrating the high efficiency to which epiphytes extract and accumulate K at concentrations much higher than available from the surrounding environment. In fact they demonstrated that this was an energy requiring process (not passive osmosis).


----------



## emydura (Nov 28, 2011)

Rick said:


> SlipperKing is corresponding with NTS because we don't see any phosphorus.
> 
> If it wasn't for the lack of P listed, this would be about what I was after.:wink:
> If it really was shy on P, I might use it with a dash of potassium phosphate added.



I checked with NTS and they confirmed that it has no P.

So I could add potassium phosphate as you recommend. Or I could combine this fertiliser with one I currently use which has been very successful. It is a slow release fertiliser that I attach to my hose which I use most times I water my orchids. It has a NPK of 7.0 : 17.5 : 5.0. 

I have been using this for about 18 months and I have seen a noticeable increase in the size of my growths. This could be due to two reasons. Firstly the K is lower than any other fertiliser I use. Secondly I think the orchids get more fertiliser when you water and fertilise at the same time. The convention is you water first and add the fertiliser after. But I wonder how much fertiliser a plant gets when the potting mix is saturated before the fertiliser is added. Does it just flow straight out of the pot? Anyway I am loathe to stop using it as I know it is working. Others in our society who use it have told me they have seen noticeable improvements in their plants.

I will be using the Trio (CMB) as a foliar fertiliser whereas the hose attached fertiliser will be used on the roots. Between the two I hopefully should have it all covered with fairly low levels of K overall. 

Any thoughts on this? Is my K low enough? Is there a risk I will over-fertilise?


----------



## SlipperKing (Nov 28, 2011)

Interesting hose attachment David! I'm no expert but your numbers look good. Do you have any idea at what rate the fertilizer feeds from your attachment?


----------



## Ozpaph (Nov 28, 2011)

David, Is that Magamp? I seem to remember them selling an attachment like that.


----------



## emydura (Nov 28, 2011)

SlipperKing said:


> Interesting hose attachment David! I'm no expert but your numbers look good. Do you have any idea at what rate the fertilizer feeds from your attachment?



That is the unknown. It is hard to know at what concentration you are fertilising at. I don't have any figures. I wouldn't think it was real high. The fertiliser inside the attachment takes forever to dissolve. I have a chinese food container full of replacement fertiliser but I doubt I will get through half of that in my life time. 

If applied equally I would expect the NTS fertiliser to be more dominant due to the far greater efficiency of foliar fertlisers. Hopefully it would get enough P from the hose fertiliser.



Ozpaph said:


> David, Is that Magamp? I seem to remember them selling an attachment like that.



Yes, it is. I got mine from the Orchid Tray Company -

http://www.orchidtrays.com.au/view_product.php?id=229

David


----------



## Stone (Nov 28, 2011)

Rick said:


> There are small amounts in all geologies (larger amounts in feldspar, but most of it not readily available).
> 
> 90 some odd % of this K is constantly being recycled by the plants themselves. Remember that before people mined rare deposits of high K rock (like greensand), K for crop fertilization was derived from wood ashes. The term potash goes back (I think even to ancient Greece) of burn ashes soaked in pots to extract the K (although at that time they didn't know it was potassium they were extracting from the wood ashes.
> 
> I mentioned a paper on leaf tissue analysis and physio mechanisms of epiphytic plants (done on bromiliads, but the authors extrapolated to all epiphytes, including orchids). This paper is the one demonstrating the high efficiency to which epiphytes extract and accumulate K at concentrations much higher than available from the surrounding environment. In fact they demonstrated that this was an energy requiring process (not passive osmosis).



If you consider a tillandsia growing on a wire cable or a vanda on a dead tree without access to humus, moss, bark, leaf litter or exudates then regardless of their efficency of nutrient uptake, its obvious there's a good (at least very small but adequate ) amount of nutrient floating around in the air at certain times. Especially N but also P, Ca and K etc.
My question was: why is this K not accumulating in the eco systems of these tropical forests when leaf samples from temperate areas typically show K levels as high or higher than N and much higher that Ca.?
I'm not doubting the findings, but I'd like to understand the process.
I wonder if high annual temp. is involved.


----------



## Stone (Nov 28, 2011)

emydura said:


> > That is the unknown. It is hard to know at what concentration you are fertilising at. I don't have any figures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## emydura (Nov 28, 2011)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > David, You should seriously consider getting yourself a good EC meter before you unleash that onto your plants.( if you don't already have one ). It's the only way to be sure.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Nov 28, 2011)

emydura said:


> I checked with NTS and they confirmed that it has no P.
> 
> So I could add potassium phosphate as you recommend. Or I could combine this fertiliser with one I currently use which has been very successful. It is a slow release fertiliser that I attach to my hose which I use most times I water my orchids. It has a NPK of 7.0 : 17.5 : 5.0.
> 
> ...



What is the chemistry (hardness and alkalinity) of the irrigation water used with the above fert system? (and between fertilizer waterings?)

Kind of forgot about the Ca/Mg part of the equation that needs to go with that low K. Unless you are using a rain water or RO water, you are probably getting a good dose of Ca with your mains water. Other wise is there Ca/Mg supplied by the above system?


----------



## Rick (Nov 28, 2011)

Stone said:


> If you consider a tillandsia growing on a wire cable or a vanda on a dead tree without access to humus, moss, bark, leaf litter or exudates then regardless of their efficency of nutrient uptake, its obvious there's a good (at least very small but adequate ) amount of nutrient floating around in the air at certain times. Especially N but also P, Ca and K etc.
> My question was: why is this K not accumulating in the eco systems of these tropical forests when leaf samples from temperate areas typically show K levels as high or higher than N and much higher that Ca.?
> I'm not doubting the findings, but I'd like to understand the process.
> I wonder if high annual temp. is involved.



The vanda on the dead tree is still access the K in the dead tree wood. And if its on a dead tree, its only going to be there for a short time anyway since dead trees get broken down and recycled very quickly in the rainforest. Tilllandsias don't grow on wire cables in nature. I would really like to see your data on the high amount of K in rain water. K is considerably more toxic to freshwater organisms than Na, Ca, and Mg. Its very rare that K exceeds 5 ppm in any freshwater ecosystem, and if it does, then it will be depopulated of molluscs and many other invertebrates. Freshwater mussels have been extirpated from large portions of the US from fertilizer runoff. They can't take more than 7-11ppm of K for very long before dieing. We work with lots of micro crustaceans that can't take much above 25 ppm. A rainfall event with concentrations "as high or higher than sea water 390ppm!!!" would pretty much cause some considerable dieoffs in inland freshwater ecosystems. 

Also I'm not finding high K in temperate forest leaf litter data either. In fact the pecan growers in the southern US monitor there production growth very carefully by the use of fresh leaf tissue analysis. And it shows the same level of NPK Ca/Mg as the rain forest data. The ag extension service info for pecan growers is pretty emphatic about NOT supplementing K, and only suggests minor supplementing of N and Zinc when leaf tissue values fall.

The only time when I consistently see lots of K is in annual food crop production where fertilizer is specifically added, or soils have been amended (like with greensand).


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2011)

Stone said:


> emydura said:
> 
> 
> > David, You should seriously consider getting yourself a good EC meter before you unleash that onto your plants.( if you don't already have one ). It's the only way to be sure.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2011)

What I measure is hardness (which is combined Ca/Mg concentration), alkalinity (from bicarbonate buffering capacity), and ammonia and/or nitrate.

You could get all this from an aquarium store, but the nitrogen test range for fish is way to low for fertilizer strength for plants, and you'd have to make big dilutions with pure water to get to a measurable place on the scale (and then multiply the value X your dilution factor).

I don't know if HACH distributes in Australia, but they make a bunch of easy to use colorimetric water chemistry test kits.


----------



## Stone (Nov 29, 2011)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > I work with EC meters and study TDS toxicity for a living. EC is a very poor way of understanding fertilizer relationships and paph needs.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Nov 29, 2011)

Rick;326798[QUOTE said:


> ]The vanda on the dead tree is still access the K in the dead tree wood. And if its on a dead tree, its only going to be there for a short time anyway since dead trees get broken down and recycled very quickly in the rainforest.



Apparently Vanda coerulea grows on dead trees and lives a long life on them.I have some doubt that its getting much in the way of nutrients from bleached dead wood. Where is the P,Fe,Ca coming from?



> Tilllandsias don't grow on wire cables in nature.



Not only do they grow on elecrical cables but also on cacti. Your're not going to tell me that they get their K from impervious cactus skin?




> I would really like to see your data on the high amount K in rain water.



I think that was an old article in Nature I will see if I can find it.




> K is considerably more toxic to freshwater organisms than Na, Ca, and Mg. Its very rare that K exceeds 5 ppm in any freshwater ecosystem, and if it does, then it will be depopulated of molluscs and many other invertebrates. Freshwater mussels have been extirpated from large portions of the US from fertilizer runoff. They can't take more than 7-11ppm of K for very long before dieing. We work with lots of micro crustaceans that can't take much above 25 ppm. A rainfall event with concentrations "as high or higher than sea water 390ppm!!!" would pretty much cause some considerable dieoffs in inland freshwater ecosystems.




Obviously there is not a consetration high enough to affect these inverts 99% of the time but it has been recorded.




> The only time when I consistently see lots of K is in annual food crop production where fertilizer is specifically added, or soils have been amended (like with greensand).


[/QUOTE]

From what I'm reading K/N ratio is 0.5 to 1.5 wilth a mean of 1


----------



## emydura (Nov 29, 2011)

Rick said:


> What is the chemistry (hardness and alkalinity) of the irrigation water used with the above fert system? (and between fertilizer waterings?)
> 
> Kind of forgot about the Ca/Mg part of the equation that needs to go with that low K. Unless you are using a rain water or RO water, you are probably getting a good dose of Ca with your mains water. Other wise is there Ca/Mg supplied by the above system?



Our tap water is as follows -

Alkalinity - 35.8 mg/L as CaCO3
Total hardness - 39.6 mg/L as CaCO3

There is no information other than N:K for the magamp fertiliser. I assume it contains little or no Ca/Mg. That is why I am also applying the NTS fertiliser. It is good to know that Paphs can handle strong fertlisers based on Ca/Mg. That was my fear.


----------



## emydura (Nov 29, 2011)

Rick said:


> You can give whatever you like but its the final salinity that's important to roots wherever it comes from.



I know that the Magamp fertiliser on its own doesn't burn the roots and I will only be applying the NTS fertiliser to the leaves, so it doesn't sound like I have anything to worry about.


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2011)

emydura said:


> Our tap water is as follows -
> 
> Alkalinity - 35.8 mg/L as CaCO3
> Total hardness - 39.6 mg/L as CaCO3
> ...



The basic formula to convert Hardess (as CaCO3) to Ca/Mg concentrations is 

H= (2.48 X Ca mg/L) + (4.11 X Mg mg/L) If all the hardness in your water came from Ca, then you would be applying roughly 16 mg/L of Ca to your plants each time you watered. But in most cases there is always some Mg (usually about 20% of the hardness is from Mg unless you are over some strange geology like serpentine). So just guestimating you are applying maybe 10-11 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg to your plants with each watering.

In general your water is considered soft with fairly low alkalinity. You could stand to use a fertilizer that is loppsided to nitrates rather than ammonia as the nitrogen source.


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2011)

emydura said:


> I know that the Magamp fertiliser on its own doesn't burn the roots and I will only be applying the NTS fertiliser to the leaves, so it doesn't sound like I have anything to worry about.



I'm getting quoted in one of your last posts for something I didn't say. Weird


----------



## emydura (Nov 29, 2011)

Rick said:


> The basic formula to convert Hardess (as CaCO3) to Ca/Mg concentrations is
> 
> H= (2.48 X Ca mg/L) + (4.11 X Mg mg/L) If all the hardness in your water came from Ca, then you would be applying roughly 16 mg/L of Ca to your plants each time you watered. But in most cases there is always some Mg (usually about 20% of the hardness is from Mg unless you are over some strange geology like serpentine). So just guestimating you are applying maybe 12 ppm Ca and 4 ppm Mg to your plants with each watering.
> 
> In general your water is considered soft with fairly low alkalinity. You could stand to use a fertilizer that is loppsided to nitrates rather than ammonia as the nitrogen source.



Thanks Rick



Rick said:


> I'm getting quoted in one of your last posts for something I didn't say. Weird



Sorry Rick. My fault. Incorrect cut and paste. That quote came from Stone.


----------



## Stone (Nov 29, 2011)

Rick said:


> > would really like to see your data on the high amount of K in rain water.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Nov 29, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > From the small exerpt that I could find the idea was basically that there exists a very thin layer on the ocean surface which contain significant levels of K and other elements as a result of micro organism activity and that this layer can be picked up by wind off the white caps and transfered to the atmosphere resuting in readings of K levels in the resulting rain as high as 10 times that found in bulk sea water.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

Rick said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > The K concentration of bulk sea water (almost anywhere in the world) is close to 400 ppm K (it's not a trace element in sea water). 10 X that would be 4000 mg/L K . Also since K is not found in elemental form in nature and must be associated with an anion (in this case I assume would be chloride, the most common anion in sea water) which means that rain would have approximately7500 mg/L of KCL in it on a good day. 7.5 grams/L of KCl has a conductivity of roughly 15,000 useimens/cm. I have never seen rain water with a conductivity that high. What did you say was the EC or your rain water?
> ...


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

Rick, Just read a study from Africa showing similar results as your Sumatran paper . Leaf litter nutrients where in order: N-Ca-Mg-Na-P-K. reason for low K was given as high level of leaching durinig rainy season. Higher K was recorded during the dry. Another study showed high K during the wet.
Confusing!
I've had it up to here with K!!!!!!

Cheers 
Mike


----------



## keithrs (Nov 30, 2011)

Take it for what it is..... More signs that Ca is about equal to N and K is low.


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

keithrs said:


> Take it for what it is..... More signs that Ca is about equal to N and K is low.



In the end that dosen't say much when your talking about levels in paph leaves


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

This is starting to get tedious
This is what my reference says

APROXIMATE CONSENTRATIONS RANGES OF NUTRIENT ELEMENTS TYPICALLY
FOUND IN PLANT LEAVES (DRY) ----------

Percentage 

N 2-5
P 0.4-0.5
K 1.5-6
Ca 0.4-1.5
Mg 0.4-1
S 0.3-0.8

PPM

Fe 70-200
Zn 50-100


----------



## Bjorn (Nov 30, 2011)

*Low K nutrition*

This is a stuff that I have used as additive to some of my paph mixes. No harm seen so far, perhaps I should use it more? Its low in K so perhaps interesting to others. Its based on physiolith, calcified seaweed, and kelp and should supposedly stimulate root-growth etc. While I am a bit sceptical to is use in farming, I do think that it may have a nice in orchid nutrition. What do you think? 
Kalciumcarbonate..................75 %
Magnesiumcarbonate.............. 7 %
Si......................................4,5 %
N....................................0,6 %
Na..................................1,7 %
Fe.................................1,3 %
Potassium Phosphate........................0,9 %
S........................0,5 %
Cl........................................0,2 %
K....................................0,1 %
I..........................................0,1 %
Organic matter ...............2,5 %
Aminopurines........................1,9 %
Aminoacids...............................1 %
K........... 502 ppm
Mn......... 396 ppm
B................ 396 ppm
In............ 173 ppm
F.................45 ppm
Pb....................49 ppm
Cu................15 ppm
Br................40 ppm
Zn.................. 15 ppm
Ti................35 ppm
Mo...........3 ppm
Co............... 3 ppm
Se...................1 ppm
Ag...................1 ppm
Cr..................5 ppm
Ni.................8 ppm
pH: 8.8


----------



## Ray (Nov 30, 2011)

Rick said:


> I think 10:1 N:K would work just fine for hydroponics But still need 10:5 N:Ca and 10:1 N:Mg especially if you are using a bark, CHC, or sphagnum moss based mix.


If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order. Based upon what you'all are stating, it sounds like something around 10-2-3-5Ca-2Mg (P as P2O5, K as K2O), with the trace elements along the levels of the MSU RO formula would be appropriate.

If we can come up with a formula, I'll ask Bill Argo to work up a cost, and we can share that.



Rick said:


> Over time the mix will also load up on K and then your root zone K will be a lot higher than the 1 or so ppm you are feeding in on fertilizer day.


Are we messing with this because of mineral buildup, or is there a solid nutritional basis for the reduced K? If it's just the former, it seems like a lot of hassle to avoid repotting.


----------



## keithrs (Nov 30, 2011)

Stone said:


> In the end that dosen't say much when your talking about levels in paph leaves



Personally, I think it saids alot about there environment. At least in this snapshot.... What makes a Paph any different from the surrounding plants? 

Looks to me like this tree is very efficient at pulling K out of the top soil/leaf litter.... So Would K levels be high in paph leaves too,even though K is low in the media there in?


Wait you confuse me..... Are we talking about Paph or Vandas?....LOLoke:


----------



## Rick (Nov 30, 2011)

Ray said:


> If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order. Based upon what you'all are stating, it sounds like something around 10-2-3-5Ca-2Mg (P as P2O5, K as K2O), with the trace elements along the levels of the MSU RO formula would be appropriate.
> 
> If we can come up with a formula, I'll ask Bill Argo to work up a cost, and we can share that.
> 
> Are we messing with this because of mineral buildup, or is there a solid nutritional basis for the reduced K? If it's just the former, it seems like a lot of hassle to avoid repotting.



Sorry Ray, but I'm going to say both.

I like those numbers from a nutrition standpoint for hydroponics. But I think there is more slop in the system from a pure nutrition standpoint.

However, I think that the "mineral buildup" which I would prefer to look at as an ion exchange issue is a compounding factor for growers in bark/CHC/sphag. I would probably like to see a bit more Ca/Mg in a potting mix version, but its easy to offset a potting mix with lime addatives and using at least partial mains water rather than straight RO.

However it wouldn't hurt my feelings to go to a 3-5 year repotting schedule instead of religous every year.

Given the improvements I'm seeing in my mounted plants taking the direction I'm going presently indicates this is much more nutrition than "salting" issues.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 30, 2011)

Ray said:


> If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order. Based upon what you'all are stating, it sounds like something around 10-2-3-5Ca-2Mg (P as P2O5, K as K2O), with the trace elements along the levels of the MSU RO formula would be appropriate.
> 
> If we can come up with a formula, I'll ask Bill Argo to work up a cost, and we can share that.



Why not make the formula lower in P and K?
10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg
Keep the suspect elements low to test the theory. and if they are low we can always add a little more to increase the P or K. It's easier to add rather than try to reduce the ratio. And P and K are easy to add as a top dressing seasonally.


----------



## Rick (Nov 30, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Why not make the formula lower in P and K?
> 10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg
> Keep the suspect elements low to test the theory. and if they are low we can always add a little more to increase the P or K. It's easier to add rather than try to reduce the ratio. And P and K are easy to add as a top dressing seasonally.


 
I'd go for this more, and then as Lance suggests, gives me some room to add a dash of Proteckt in the spring.

Gets the silicates up too.


----------



## Rick (Nov 30, 2011)

Ray said:


> If anyone would like to experiment, I can get this made up by Greencare (the original MSU formula folks) for a 1-bag minimum order.



Can we get it labeled as the "Slipertalk Elite Formula"oke:oke:

Maybe we can have a naming contest!

Could I have my picture on the label (like Paul Newman's salad dressings)?

I could probably throw a dozen each of lowii and calosum seedlings into a trial.


----------



## cnycharles (Nov 30, 2011)

I was going to say (before my computer locked up, twice), that if the test bag of fertilizer got too low with p and k, we might just as well have a bag of calcium nitrate, with some micro nutrients added, and later on add some epsom salts for magnesium... just a thought


----------



## Rick (Nov 30, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> I was going to say (before my computer locked up, twice), that if the test bag of fertilizer got too low with p and k, we might just as well have a bag of calcium nitrate, with some micro nutrients added, and later on add some epsom salts for magnesium... just a thought



Yes, but then I couldn't put my picture (wearing cool sunglasses) on the label.


----------



## jtrmd (Nov 30, 2011)

Ray said:


> If anyone would like to experiment




maybe?


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

Has anyone had the enthusianum to try feeding at very very very low rates at every watering as they would recieve in the habitat? say 1/10 strength?


----------



## gonewild (Nov 30, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> I was going to say (before my computer locked up, twice), that if the test bag of fertilizer got too low with p and k, we might just as well have a bag of calcium nitrate, with some micro nutrients added, and later on add some epsom salts for magnesium... just a thought



That would be to easy! We should assume that we need some P and K in the base formula. The ratio needs to be usable for a variety of different growing medias. And the idea I had when I started the thread was to come up with a formula that the average orchid collector would be able to use without having to measure out several different materials.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 30, 2011)

Stone said:


> Has anyone had the enthusianum to try feeding at very very very low rates at every watering as they would recieve in the habitat? say 1/10 strength?



That is already pretty well proven to not work well in a captive environment. The plants benefit and grow better (appearance) when they get a lot of nutrients compared to what can be measured in Nature. The idea is to figure out how to force feed them without poisoning them with an excess of certain elements.


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

gonewild said:


> > That is already pretty well proven to not work
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Nov 30, 2011)

Don't you think this will make the difference on the label :





SLIPPERTALK ELITE PAPH GROWERS FORMULA


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

Rick said:


> Don't you think this will make the difference on the label
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OOOOOHHHHH YES that will make a HUUUGGEEE difference!


----------



## gonewild (Nov 30, 2011)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Proven? I grow a lot of other things besides orchids and have found its always preferable if they recieve a continual delivery of nurients during the growing season. This is the way the Japanese people (not all) feed their plants including paphs and they have had 3 hundred years experience in container growing. They use solid organic fertilizer made from pressed seed meal and bone meal with undeniable results but you really have to know what your doing.
> ...


----------



## SlipperKing (Nov 30, 2011)

Rick said:


> Don't you think this will make the difference on the label :
> *That has to be you Rick!*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > . A continual weak solution will maintain plants and that fits well into the Japanese culture where they consider their plants will be in their families for generations, they are not in a hurry.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Nov 30, 2011)

gonewild said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Dec 1, 2011)

Stone said:


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


----------



## gonewild (Dec 1, 2011)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 1, 2011)

I would be happy to not kill off many of my seedlings


----------



## Ray (Dec 2, 2011)

Sorry for ignoring this. Just got back (1200 miles later) from a funeral in NC.

Catching up... I think there is a bit of a flaw in using natural conditions and wild-plant tissue analyses as our yardstick. Plants in nature are in subsistence mode, not in the productive mode we'd like to see. Lance addressed that well.

I just got off the phone with Bill Argo, and related this discussion, and he said "that's the difference between botanists and floraculturists". 

I emailed him about the concept of "K-Lite", using the calcium nitrate/MSU/mag sulfate blend as an example, a few days ago, and he called to discuss it.

First is the difficulty of blending calcium compounds and magnesium compounds in concentrates. Stated he could make the formulation, but would have to use magnesium nitrate, rather than calcium nitrate & mag sulfate. I don't think the raw materials matter that much, as long as the final solution is right.

He also mentioned that bark & coir products tend to have K in them already, so maybe that's the reason adding it via the fertilizers is less of an issue. Obviously, that's more of a concern for me, growing stuff in LECA, so even if the demand is low, it ain't coming from the "rocks".

What I'm mostly concerned about is whatever "side effects" such a nutrient loading change may have. Monsanto was doing a nutrition study with potted corn plants, and they all displayed the pale yellowing associated with an iron deficiency. It turned out they were not supplying enough phosphorus, and that somehow blocked the Fe uptake.

So...all that said, do we have any takers?


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

gonewild said:


> We can do better than that by not killing off 99.9% of the seedlings to produce one specimen plant.



This was maybe the number one reason I got started on this research in the first place.

Number 2 would be all the plants that I grew great for 3 years to just go into burnout after that.

I really can appreciate the old expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But after 10 years of growing I saw plenty that was obviously broken (at least by my standards).

Also if you go through a lot of the anti CITES threads were Roth points out the rather dismally high mortality rate of propagated seedlings and adult plants going into the world wide market, you could also come up with the notion that it was not just me having the problems.

We can't replicate nature in the GH, but there's no reason we can't learn from it and apply it to our culture programs.

I don't think we necessarily have to give up on faster/better. If you saw my post on my venustum seedling, that plant achieved blooming less than 2 years out of flask. More than half of that time it was in a basket and going to low K fertilizing. It's only one plant, (so not statistically significant), but it's apparent that what I was doing didn't kill it.

I also recently posted some pics of mastersianum seedlings growing at what I think is an impressive rate. These are typically poor doers for a lot of people and would be included on Roth's list of seedlings never making it to market list.

I really don't care, if these guys beat all FCC records, but they sure don't seem to be suffering for what I'm putting them through either.


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

Ray said:


> First is the difficulty of blending calcium compounds and magnesium compounds in concentrates. Stated he could make the formulation, but would have to use magnesium nitrate, rather than calcium nitrate & mag sulfate. I don't think the raw materials matter that much, as long as the final solution is right.


I agree



Ray said:


> He also mentioned that bark & coir products tend to have K in them already, so maybe that's the reason adding it via the fertilizers is less of an issue. Obviously, that's more of a concern for me, growing stuff in LECA, so even if the demand is low, it ain't coming from the "rocks".


Ray this is something I put into the consideration, but there are 2 parts to it. 
First is that all plant products (bark, CHC, sphagnum) contain a certain amount of potassium that will be accessible as it breaks down. But secondly my main concern is that these materials are also potassium sponges (Cation Exchange or similar mechanism) and will really load up the K to toxic levels. I'm pretty sure this is why everyone is having such great luck switching to Orchiata bark, and why Bob Wellenstiens Ca/Mg treatment of CHC were so successful. It starts these products out as something closer to limestone rock rather than an organic bark

Needless to say for the SH crowd, if you consider all the species that grow on limestone rock, they get almost no K in their diet either, and this diet should do great for SH too.

I have lots of mounted plants (bark plaques) granted not totally inert like clay pellets, but close to SH with regards to root exposure and they have also improved greatly. I do have 5 phrags in SH. I recently posted the Phrag caricinum pics. There hasn't been a huge increase in growth size, but rate of new growth is as good as ever, and frequency/severity of erwinia has declined significantly.



Ray said:


> What I'm mostly concerned about is whatever "side effects" such a nutrient loading change may have. Monsanto was doing a nutrition study with potted corn plants, and they all displayed the pale yellowing associated with an iron deficiency. It turned out they were not supplying enough phosphorus, and that somehow blocked the Fe uptake.
> 
> So...all that said, do we have any takers?



Well I've been sacrificing all the plants in my collection now for about 6 months and I like the results, so I'll square away some seedlings to the cause of trying out a special ST formula.

Did you see one of Lance's last posts on final formulas?


----------



## Ray (Dec 2, 2011)

gonewild said:


> 10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg


Does that seem right/OK to everyone?

If so, how many takers? (I will need commitments, as I'm not about to pay for this all by myself.)

Also, how much would each person like? At that formula, 1 teaspoon per gallon would be about 125 ppm N, so figure what you'd want to use, how many gallons you'd want to make up to feed your test plants, and for how long (number of feedings) you'd want to try.


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

Ray said:


> Does that seem right/OK to everyone?
> 
> If so, how many takers? (I will need commitments, as I'm not about to pay for this all by myself.)
> 
> Also, how much would each person like? At that formula, 1 teaspoon per gallon would be about 125 ppm N, so figure what you'd want to use, how many gallons you'd want to make up to feed your test plants, and for how long (number of feedings) you'd want to try.



A pound of MSU will last me a year. I can't imagine a 5'lb quantity will break my bank What's our minimum quantity?


----------



## keithrs (Dec 2, 2011)

I'm in..... I'll take 5 lbs too!


----------



## Hera (Dec 2, 2011)

Hmm I'd like to try it.


----------



## keithrs (Dec 2, 2011)

How well does Greencare mix there fertilizers? I know that there was some discrepancy on how well they mixed the MSU stuff.


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 2, 2011)

I'd be interested in trying, but I think the phosphorus level is too low


----------



## Stone (Dec 2, 2011)

Rick said:


> > Needless to say for the SH crowd, if you consider all the species that grow on limestone rock, they get almost no K in their diet either, and this diet should do great for SH too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Dec 2, 2011)

Rick said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > This was maybe the number one reason I got started on this research in the first place.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > I also have lots of mounted stuff and I've been using straight hyro. fertilizer which by all accounts looks like your MSU but maybe with higher K for 5 years. I have never had any of the problems you speak of. In fact I'm seeing better results than before.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > You're Quoting me on something I didn't say
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick, I just put a delenatii seedling into a basket ( you're really on to something here ) have been feeding it with 1/4 of the normal K. Within 2 days and only watering ( no exaggeration ), it put out 3 new root tips.
> 
> Mike



But you did 2 things at once. basket AND low feed.

When I first started the basket thing, yes I saw some very fast responses. But after a few couple months some things started slowing down. That's when I started cutting K. Everything in baskets sped back up AND both mounted plants, and the plants left in pots also took off.

I've been trying to grow live moss in the pots and baskets. In general it does poorly under high feed conditions, and won't compete with algaes. But they are faster responding than orchids, so in some ways I can get a faster read on the system by watching the moss growth.


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

Stone said:


> For instance, If you planted 2 identical orchids, using the same p/mix, one in a pot and one in a basket, used a low K feed in the pot and ''regular'' feed for the other, which plant would perform better?
> 
> Mike



The low K mix would do better.

I have been doing a couple of comparisons of baskets vs pots both using the same moss/gravel/sand mix. I also left splits of some of my paphs in standard bark potting mixes in pots.

The trials were started when everything got the standard MSU. Initially all the baskets really took off, the pots with moss went down hill, the plants untouched in bark stayed the same. Then when I cut K all 3 types took off regardless of potting system.

I think the basket aeration is very helpful, but fresh moss is like fresh bark is like fresh CHC. It's low in K but will suck up a bunch of K quickly without lots of Ca/Mg available. Once the substrate is full of K then you might as well be using a 12-5-75 fertilizer. I think this is a primary reason why I think my mounted stuff always held up so much better than potted stuff. No substrate to get saturated with K.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Dec 2, 2011)

I am now trying a low P/low K approach. I'm now using a 50:50 MSU:CaNO3 ratio most feedings, alternating with straight CaNO3....and every now and then MgSO4. Too soon to see if this is an improvement over MSU. To be honest, its would probably take me at least a year, really more, to see if lowP/K is really that much better for my plants. (I'm willing to try, as I figure experimenting with lower nutrients is way better than experimenting with more.) While I'd be willing to go in on the mix Ray said he could get, 5 lbs is way more than I can use...a lb of MSU alone lasts me a at least 2 years...probably 3-4.


----------



## Rick (Dec 2, 2011)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> I am now trying a low P/low K approach. I'm now using a 50:50 MSU:CaNO3 ratio most feedings, alternating with straight CaNO3....and every now and then MgSO4. Too soon to see if this is an improvement over MSU. To be honest, its would probably take me at least a year, really more, to see if lowP/K is really that much better for my plants. (I'm willing to try, as I figure experimenting with lower nutrients is way better than experimenting with more.)



Eric Your experiences with emersonii dying after blooming is another data point in the pile that got me started on this.

If you haven't sworn off them entirely you might give them at try again with this method.

I only have one that I have been playing with for about 7 years (from seedling). It's darker and bigger than ever with leaves thick as shoe leather (and in bract). But it add 2 growths (for total of 4 now) just this past summer. 

You also had similar problems as me with barbata types dying in CHC, I'm retrying some colosum seedlings in CHC. It may take a year to prove otherwise as you said, but so far so good.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Dec 2, 2011)

I'll never give up on emersonii! I currently have 2...one has literally not changed a bit in the 2 or more years I have had it. No growth at all. Leaves are still hard. I repotted it a few weeks ago....a lot of root loss, but still several live roots. the other is a seedling I got from Tom Kalina....its doing well, and actively growing. Unfortunately, its actively growing at an emersonii pace. Most barbata's are doing well now, but I'll never go back to CHC for them. I've now used Orchiata bark for maybe 2 years, and I'm happy. My big mistake with CHC was switching everything over to it when I first started to see success. Paphs love being repotted into CHC...initial growth is great. But after a few months, the lower roots all die and foliage yellows. CHC would probably still be good if I was willing to repot 2-3 times a year. I have high hopes that you are right about everything.


----------



## keithrs (Dec 3, 2011)

Eric Muehlbauer said:


> I have high hopes that you are right about everything.



We all do!!!!oke:


----------



## Ray (Dec 3, 2011)

*Rick* - Minimum quantity is one bag of 25# - won't know the cost until a formula is used to develop the ingredients.

*Keith* - Greencare is used to producing fertilizers for folks that use full bags or even pallets at a time, so homogeneity of the mix is not critical. Whenever I repackage the stuff, I try to dry blend it first. No matter what, folks really should use a larger volume of the powder blend to make a stock solution, as that will tend to be more representative of the overall formula, and then cut it down for use.

*Charles* - If you consider that phosphorus is taken up as much as possible, with excess stored in the vacuoles, I doubt that will be an issue. Frankly, I am more concerned that the low-K might have a negative effect upon water management and overall plant turgidity, as that's pretty much what controls it.


----------



## Rick (Dec 3, 2011)

Ray said:


> *Rick* - Minimum quantity is one bag of 25# - won't know the cost until a formula is used to develop the ingredients.
> 
> *Charles* - If you consider that phosphorus is taken up as much as possible, with excess stored in the vacuoles, I doubt that will be an issue. Frankly, I am more concerned that the low-K might have a negative effect upon water management and overall plant turgidity, as that's pretty much what controls it.



So if we get 5 takers to commit to 5 lbs you would be in good shape Ray? Once a super concentrate is made up, what do you think the shelf life would be?

The bromiliad paper I have indicated that K storing vacuoles occur in epiphytic species too (probably in all plants, but I haven't followed up to find that definitive info). So the logic for K is the logic for P. A constant dose of 1 mg/L K is still more than most orchids experience in the wild. It's still an excess quantity. If this product feeds at 125 mg/L N then the K should be 12.5 mg/L (- 20% since Potash). It's very rare to find a surface water (especially a headwater stream) with K over 3-4 ppm. Since headwater streams are where you see all drainage of rainwater percolating through forest leaf litter, and geologic seepage that's pretty much as good as its going to get for the plants in a given area as soluble K. For seepage water traveling over limestone rock, K is generally much lower than 1 ppm. This is why I think our calcerious orchid friends my be so much more sensitive to K overdose. But in all cases soluble Ca and Mg are many times higher than K concentrations.

I think we'll be alright.


----------



## keithrs (Dec 3, 2011)

Ray said:


> *Keith* - Greencare is used to producing fertilizers for folks that use full bags or even pallets at a time, so homogeneity of the mix is not critical. Whenever I repackage the stuff, I try to dry blend it first. No matter what, folks really should use a larger volume of the powder blend to make a stock solution, as that will tend to be more representative of the overall formula, and then cut it down for use.



Thats good to know Ray.....


----------



## likespaphs (Dec 3, 2011)

i could probably be convinced to get some too


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 3, 2011)

Count me in too Ray/Rick


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 3, 2011)

One of the things that makes me wonder about the phosphorus being too low, is someone's research that showed that high p (for certain paphs) made them much happier? Also I think they were giving them mancozeb for manganese...

if it were just certain plants and situations that needed more p, then I guess some bloom booster once in a while for them would help. there won't be any perfect one fertilizer, but if k is a 'limiting' factor in most cases trying this out seems to be a good idea


----------



## gonewild (Dec 3, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


----------



## Ray (Dec 3, 2011)

OK, the request for "something akin to 10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg, with the trace elements along the lines of the 'Orchid Specials'" has been sent to Bill.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 3, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> One of the things that makes me wonder about the phosphorus being too low, is someone's research that showed that high p (for certain paphs) made them much happier? Also I think they were giving them mancozeb for manganese...
> 
> if it were just certain plants and situations that needed more p, then I guess some bloom booster once in a while for them would help. there won't be any perfect one fertilizer, but if k is a 'limiting' factor in most cases trying this out seems to be a good idea



It is real easy to add extra phosphorous with a few drops of Phosphoric acid.
Here is one possible source: Phosphoric Acid


----------



## gonewild (Dec 3, 2011)

Ray said:


> OK, the request for "something akin to 10-1-1-5Ca-2Mg, with the trace elements along the lines of the 'Orchid Specials'" has been sent to Bill.



If you need more people to chip in to make the purchase let me know. I don't know if I'll be able to use in in the near future but will help make sure others can get a chance to try it. We need to see the results that different growers have with it.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 3, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > What I have been trying to convey is the fact that the enviroment you create around your plants (temp air light water humidity air for roots etc.) has infinately more influence on your ultimate results than the composition of your fertilizer. For instance, If you planted 2 identical orchids, using the same p/mix, one in a pot and one in a basket, used a low K feed in the pot and ''regular'' feed for the other, which plant would perform better?
> ...


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 3, 2011)

gonewild said:


> It is real easy to add extra phosphorous with a few drops of Phosphoric acid.
> Here is one possible source: Phosphoric Acid



ah, probably 'pH Down' in my aquarium supply box
or just use bone meal every so often


----------



## gonewild (Dec 3, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> ah, probably 'pH Down' in my aquarium supply box
> or just use bone meal every so often



Yes, it is easy to add Phosphorous in a bunch of different forms, pH Down may just be phos acid diluted.


----------



## Ray (Dec 3, 2011)

*Every Kiss Begins with K... Chemical ramblings.*

No, not chemically-_induced_ ramblings.... (Even if it may seem so)

OK, Rick's obsession with potassium content had me wondering about Rick - at first. Then I got to thinking about it more, and much as I might hate to admit it, his connection of Ca, Mg, and K might have a lot more going for it that it may have originally seemed. I am basing that on chemistry alone, not plant nutritional parameters, as that is a field I cannot claim to have that great of a grasp on..

This may bore the crap out of most of you, so stop reading now.

Orchid "sap" is a solution of a wide variety of chemicals in an aqueous base. Aqueous solutions - whether they be fertilizer solutions or the sap - can only hold "so much" solute. Not just because they reach their solubility limits (hence the precipitation of some components when you try to make too concentrated of a solution), but because the dissolved species can be "antagonistic" to one another, even in dilute solutions, forcing one to "drop out" and be unavailable in response to the increase in another.

Consider, for example, the use of sodium chloride to replace the calcium-, magnesium-, and iron carbonates in "hard" water. All are well below their solubility limits, yet the process goes on. Bob Wellenstein's article about CHC treatment with calcium nitrate and magnesium sulfate to "force" extraction of sodium salts from coir is another example of utilizing that chemical-solution antagonism. I use them to clean manufacturing residues from LECA on a regular basis.

Now look at a periodic table of the elements. We see that Mg and Ca are alkaline earth metals (+2 ionic charge), with K being monovalent, sitting just to the left of the calcium. Not so coincidentally, Na is just to the left of Mg, analogous to the K and Ca relationship. It seems perfectly logical to me that excessive potassium could antagonize the solution of calcium and magnesium too (water softener-like), leading to nutritional issues, and that by boosting the latter species, you might very well reverse that (as in the CHC treatment).

My only concern is just exactly what is the "correct" balance? Plants need all three (and sodium, for that matter), so we had better not tilt the apple cart too much, or it could roll right off the mountain side!


----------



## Stone (Dec 3, 2011)

Ray said:


> Sorry for ignoring this. Just got back (1200 miles later) from a funeral in NC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stone (Dec 3, 2011)

Ray said:


> > My only concern is just exactly what is the "correct" balance? Plants need all three (and sodium, for that matter), so we had better not tilt the apple cart too much, or it could roll right off the mountain side!



There is no such thing as correct balance. Also it is near impossible to maintain any one given ratio exactly.
It has been proven many times that the same species of plant can grow in media with widely differing K,Ca,Mg ratios as long as there is no GROSS imbalance of one particular element.


----------



## Stone (Dec 3, 2011)

Rick said:


> > Weren't you just complaining about having problems with an Oncidium lanceanum?
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because i couldn't maintain the required min of 18-20C


----------



## Stone (Dec 3, 2011)

Rick said:


> > The low K mix would do better
> 
> 
> .
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 3, 2011)

Ray said:


> OK, Rick's obsession with potassium content had me wondering about Rick - at first.



I'm not sure how to take that Rayoke::evil:

Also you mentioned just coming back from a funeral. I feel it would be insensitive to not take a short moment to offer some condolences for your loss (whoever it may be).


----------



## Jim Toomey (Dec 3, 2011)

Hi Ray/Rick,
I'm in for a few pounds.

Great discussion and great food for thought, I've often found myself pondering your musings during the day. Though I've had good success with MSU South Florida formula that has more magnesium, I'll be glad to try the low K diet plan.
Jim


----------



## Rick (Dec 3, 2011)

Ray said:


> My only concern is just exactly what is the "correct" balance? Plants need all three (and sodium, for that matter), so we had better not tilt the apple cart too much, or it could roll right off the mountain side!



Now that you mention it. Sodium is much more common in the environment than potassium. People using some type of natural surface or ground water will always be adding more sodium to the plants than those using RO water, and typically the growers with the most consistent problems are strict RO users.

As previously mentioned, my specialty in aquatic tox for the last several years is TDS toxicity. Until recently all aquatic animals (inverts and fish). Only recently aquatic macrophytic plants (endangered rice species in Minnisota/Canada). However I've also done a bunch of work on aquatic alga over the years.

Since 2005 I've been focused on freshwater mussel toxicity, and that is where I've gained a lot of insights into the toxicity of K, interactions with the other 6 major ions (Na, Ca, Mg, SO4, HCO3, and Cl), and the natural ionic balance of watersheds.

In developing K toxicity models for mussels I discovered an unusual situation.

If you put mussels into a solution of 100 ppm of K (regardless of the Ca concentration, but with sodium at less than 100 ppm) they will become paralyzed and bloat up within an hour, and will be dead after 48 hours. Even if you move them back into K lite river water. At low sodium the K induction is irreversible after just minutes of exposure. 

If you put the mussels into a solution of 100 ppm K, but the sodium is 200 ppm or higher, the mussels will still freeze up and die by the end of 48 hours UNLESS you move them back to normal K lite river water after 24 hours of exposure. It's completely reversible if the mussels intake more sodium. I've seen the swelling and paralysis completely alleviated in less than an hour of going back into normal river water.

We did experiments to see if increased Ca would help and it kind of did but didn't??? . But actually we have noticed that the ratio of Ca to Mg in control water can effect the overall toxicity of K to mussels (+/- 50% differences) with a minimum 2:1 Ca to Mg ratios producing better results for mussels than a 1:1 mix. But beyond that wrote raising of Ca really didn't decrease the overall toxicity of K to mussels.

You may be asking what all this mussel stuff has to do with orchids? Unionid mussels (actually over 350 species) are found worldwide and are indicators of high water quality wherever they are found. This is the same water draining out of some of the best orchid habitats world wide, and subsequently an indicator of what the final measurement of major ions is in the plants environment.

Plus the more I work with different species (plants and animals) its amazing how much its all the same at the cellular level.


----------



## Rick (Dec 3, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> One of the things that makes me wonder about the phosphorus being too low, is someone's research that showed that high p (for certain paphs) made them much happier? Also I think they were giving them mancozeb for manganese...
> 
> if it were just certain plants and situations that needed more p, then I guess some bloom booster once in a while for them would help. there won't be any perfect one fertilizer, but if k is a 'limiting' factor in most cases trying this out seems to be a good idea



Also was the enhanced P given to plants that had been given a previous diet high in K?

The rice article demonstrated a cascade effect that high tissue K inhibited Ca/Mg uptake, which in tern inhibited P uptake (but only after significant decrease of Ca/Mg uptake).

So demonstrated in the rice paper, the efficiency of P uptake is enhanced by reduced tissue K.

I think it may be 5 years ago, I was on a bonemeal kick because a bunch of my potted plants turned purple (increased anthocynin production, often attributed to Ca or P deficiencies depending on who's chart you read). I didn't understand how this could be possible using MSU, everything was in excess, and had oyster shell in most mixes, but not believing the potential for antagonism I topdressed with bonemeal and powered it out (temporarily). Plants went back to green. 

Rick H (Slipperking) started using this as a "cure" for Erwinia too because a few of us noted that boosts of calcium seemed to stop the rot. Then I recently came across the paper relating erwinia to high K because of the inhibition to Ca uptake.

So now we can add two seemingly unrelated problems (turning purple and erwinia) to a common source.


----------



## Ray (Dec 4, 2011)

Stone said:


> Ray you say you think there is a bit of a flaw in using natural conditions and wild plant tissue analysis as our yardstick then you go on to advocate Rick's low K regimen which was developed using these exact same methods to gather his information. Which one is it?
> 
> If it’s the former, perhaps you will go with the U of Hawaii's College of Tropical Agr.,s Recommendation for optimum nutrient levels for adult paphiopedilum.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the attack on what was merely an opinion. It does SO much to make me value your input.

I think my "chemical ramblings" explained my consideration that there might be some validity with the low-K regimen, irrespective of the source.

One reason that I think tissue sampling can be misleading is the fact that plants can and do absorb (via "pumps" ) more of some nutrient ions than they need or use - saving it for the proverbial "rainy day" when the local supply might not offer it in sufficient quantities. In such a case, the measured contents might be much greater than the biological need.

I'd also be willing to bet that if you took tissue samples of every awarded plant of any one species - "awarded" suggesting that _maybe_ we have helped the plant grow and bloom closer to its genetic potential through improved cultural parameters and nutrition - that you would find different chemical analyses among them.

Then there's the fact that plants grown under certain stresses take up, store, and use nutrient ions differently than those under other stresses, or even under different degrees of that same one. That suggests to me that there's the possibility that specific wild-collected samples might not even be representative of the population.

Do I think such tissue analyses are of no value? Not at all - there is a lot of insight to be gained using them. Do I think they offer the final answer? Far from it. Being a good scientist takes a lot more than knowing how to do an analysis. It also involves challenging the veracity of the data and all of the assumptions surrounding the testing.

I have less faith in mussels' ability to tell us about plant nutrition than does Rick, but I agree with his thoughts about the remarkable "universality of theme" across wide-ranging and varying creatures and habitats. I tend to come at this from the chemistry and engineering side of things, courtesy of my material science & engineering background, yet our thoughts happen to coincide...


----------



## Ray (Dec 4, 2011)

*Got a response from Bill...*

How much NH4-N do you want? There is about 5% NH4-N in the RO special. About 30% in the well water special.

If you do want a high nitrate fertilizer, then you will probably need more K, Ca, or Mg. Which of these do you want higher than the level you have in the 10-1-1 (do you want either Ca, Ca and Mg, or all three to go higher as needed to support the high nitrate fertilizer)?

In comparison, it is relatively easy to make a 10-1-1 type formula if I can use ammonical N or urea. But this fertilizer will be very acidic.
*
My preference would be to replicate the higher nitrate blend, adding Ca and Mg.

Other opinions?*


----------



## Jim Toomey (Dec 4, 2011)

Ditto, higher nitrate Blend adding Ca and Mg.


----------



## Rick (Dec 4, 2011)

Bill Argo's work goes along with my observations, that nitrate is favored under low alkalinity conditions and ammonia at higher alkalinity. 

Since I plan on sticking with a low alkalinity system (RO/dilute well water) I really need the high nitrate low ammonia system.

I'd stick with the present 5% ammonia


----------



## chrismende (Dec 4, 2011)

Cool to find out more specifically (no pun intended, but I'll accept credit for leaving it in!) about you, Rick! I casually follow these technical threads without joining in often, since I have nothing useful to contribute so far. But I love reading your comments on culture, as well as Ray's and Roth's and Lance's. I learn soooo much from you guys!


----------



## Ray (Dec 4, 2011)

I responded "I think something along the lines of the 5% NH4+ like the RO special is in order, boosting the Ca and Mg as needed." I had previously reminded him we were looking specifically for a low-K version.


----------



## Stone (Dec 4, 2011)

Ray said:


> Thanks for the attack on what was merely an opinion. It does SO much to make me value your input.
> 
> I think my "chemical ramblings" explained my consideration that there might be some validity with the low-K regimen, irrespective of the source.
> 
> ...



Ray, Im really dissapointed that you saw my post as an ''attack''. Firstly let me appologise here and now if I caused any offence. It certainly was not my intention. I aim not to offend anyone for any reason. Secondly I think sarcasm is best left out of the picture. Don't you agree? I thought we were all having a robust and sometimes vigourous discussion about a subject which we are all interested in. 

I love nothing more than reading peoples opinions and replies. To me it is just an exchange of information, you can take it or leave it.
Anyone that reads some of the replies to my postings would notice various people have attemted to ''shoot me down in flames''.--- All the better I say. My eyes start glazing over when I read everyone agreeing on everything, what would be the point?---- but I have never taken this as a personal ''attack'' At the risk of re-offending I think this would be a touch dramatic. So, if agreed, lets wipe the slate and continue.

With regard to the low K, I'm CONVINCED there is validity. Not so much because of the claimed scarcity in the habitat and the need to duplicte, but more for the reason that modern fertilizer preparations, at least what is available to me in fully soluble form, has very high K%s (higher than N) which when combined with chc in particular may lead to reduced Ca/Mg uptake.

I also agree that you would find differing nutrient values when comparing awarded plants and habitat plants. Probably higher N but also higher K. which would again suggest that they can prosper under a wide spectrum of nutrient values as long as there are no gross imbalances.

I suspect that we are probably over-feeding orchids in general when you take into account Rick's little old lady with award winning plants which are never fed, and the fact that I have some very old established orchids of various species overflowing their containers which hardly ever get anything but water and a dash if blood and bone thrown at then once a year -- if they're lucky.

Ray, I believe I was also remiss in not first offering condolences before responing to your post, Apologies


Mike


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

All's square Mike. I agree completely - this is probably the best forum online for the sharing of info without all of the BS.

I agree completely about overfeeding. I've heard a number of "I never feed" stories myself.

Mussels notwithstanding, I am nervous about creating a deficiency, even if it's not the K itself. The fact that Rick has been successful with his blend is the only thing that encourages me to experiment.


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

*Feedback Please*

Email from Bill:


Hi Ray

This formula is mostly calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate, with a little potassium phosphate and potassium nitrate. The micronutrient levels are the same (per ppm N) as the other orchid fertilizers.

The problem is going to be with the large amount of magnesium nitrate. Because it is very hydroscopic, this formula will get "wet" very quickly. I think that this formula may be a good candidate for a liquid formula. That way, you don't have to worry about its hydroscopic properties. I also think that we can get pretty close to the dry formula numbers (at least 7% N in the liquid form) because both calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate are very soluble. 

Aaron from GreenCare is on vacation this week, but I will talk to him about this when he gets back next Monday.


Fertilizer Formula	
Total N	12.94%
NO3-N	12.38%
NH4-N	0.56%
Urea N	0.00%
P2O5	1.32%
K2O	1.30%
Ca	10.63%
Mg	3.61%
S	0.09%

B	0.0387%
Cu	0.0387%
Fe	0.1548%
Mn	0.0774%
Mo	0.0155%
Zn	0.0774%


At 125 ppm N, you get 
120 ppm NO3-N
5 ppm NH4-N
5 ppm P (actual)
10 ppm K (actual)
100 ppm Ca
35 ppm Mg

1.50 ppm Fe (FeEDTA)
0.75 ppm Mn
0.75 ppm Zn
0.37 ppm Cu
0.37 ppm B
0.15 ppm Mo

Is this the formula that you want, or do you want to make any changes?

Thanks
Bill

*************************************************
*
So this is basically a 13-1-1-11Ca-4Mg formula.

The liquid idea certainly removes the heterogeneity issue.*


----------



## likespaphs (Dec 5, 2011)

would it be able to be sent dry then water added to help reduce postage?
also, and i'm sorry if i missed this previously, but would this be a formula for r.o. water or tap/well water if the tap/well is 'decent'?


----------



## gonewild (Dec 5, 2011)

Ray said:


> Email from Bill:
> 
> *
> So this is basically a 13-1-1-11Ca-4Mg formula.
> ...



That looks good.


----------



## Rick (Dec 5, 2011)

If 1/2 of the Mg salt is Mag sulfate instead of Mag nitrate would that help staying in the dry?

I think we can afford to up the sulfate anyway. And it wouldn't bother me to drop the N a bit. (80-100?? rather than 125)


----------



## gonewild (Dec 5, 2011)

When the dry fertilizer becomes wet with absorbed moisture is there any degradation or change in the composition that would alter the nutrient values?

Would be great if someone could figure out how to package a fertilizer like this in "tea bags" that were individually sealed to keep out moisture. Then a person could just put one "tea bag" in a gallon of water, let steep then fertilize the plants with it.


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 5, 2011)

there are pesticides that are marketed in dissolvable packets, usually for things that are going to be drenched or sprayed. the ingredients would have to be completely dry going in, though or the packets would all mush together


----------



## gonewild (Dec 5, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> there are pesticides that are marketed in dissolvable packets, usually for things that are going to be drenched or sprayed. the ingredients would have to be completely dry going in, though or the packets would all mush together



Yeah I have used those but I think it would not be possible to have the fertilizer dry enough to guarantee the bag would not dissolve from the inside out. If it could be packaged with the soluble plastic that would be a great retail item for a fertilizer company. Probably expensive tea bags but for us lazy people, that is what we need.


----------



## Roth (Dec 5, 2011)

Ray said:


> The problem is going to be with the large amount of magnesium nitrate. Because it is very hydroscopic, this formula will get "wet" very quickly. I think that this formula may be a good candidate for a liquid formula. That way, you don't have to worry about its hydroscopic properties. I also think that we can get pretty close to the dry formula numbers (at least 7% N in the liquid form) because both calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate are very soluble.
> 
> Fertilizer Formula
> Total N	12.94%
> ...



To my mind the P and NH4 could be too low for certain growing conditions ( that was the issue for me and I think Wendy too with the MSU). 

A part of the Magnesium must be applied as magnesium sulfate. Sulfate are indeed important for the plants. I tried an all mag nitrate formulation, no sulfate, and it performed not so well ( same for some TC media with only mag nitrate and no sulfate). From that, and the remaining, some people need to learn chemistry over there...

In a liquid formulation, it would precipitate a as kind of colloidal-looking stuff some hours after preparation, this is absolutely guaranteed. Insoluble compounds will form.



gonewild said:


> When the dry fertilizer becomes wet with absorbed moisture is there any degradation or change in the composition that would alter the nutrient values?



Massive degradation, the zinc, iron and manganese would be gone, and the calcium would blend with phosphate and sulfate to become insoluble. As a result, it would change everything...


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

likespaphs said:


> would it be able to be sent dry then water added to help reduce postage?
> also, and i'm sorry if i missed this previously, but would this be a formula for r.o. water or tap/well water if the tap/well is 'decent'?


The problem is that once the bag is opened, it will suck in water like mad, so if I get it in for repackaging, it can become a sludge before anyone got it.


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

Rick said:


> If 1/2 of the Mg salt is Mag sulfate instead of Mag nitrate would that help staying in the dry?
> 
> I think we can afford to up the sulfate anyway. And it wouldn't bother me to drop the N a bit. (80-100?? rather than 125)



I'll ask about the mag sulfate.

ppm N is just a matter of final dilution.


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

gonewild said:


> When the dry fertilizer becomes wet with absorbed moisture is there any degradation or change in the composition that would alter the nutrient values?


Moisture doesn't degrade anything, but it does make it awfully difficult to measure!


----------



## Rick (Dec 5, 2011)

Ray said:


> I'll ask about the mag sulfate.
> 
> ppm N is just a matter of final dilution.



Generally yes, but in this case some of the formula N is coming from the Mag nitrate. So if some of the Mag Nitrate is subbed with the sulfate salt, then that would change the ratios to N a bit (maybe a lot??), so at the same 1/2 tsp/gal instead of 125 N with respective ppms of all the other stuff, I wouldn't mind 80 to 100 ppm with everything else the same as previous.


----------



## Roth (Dec 5, 2011)

Ray said:


> Moisture doesn't degrade anything, but it does make it awfully difficult to measure!



Mmmmh... Unfortunately in this case, moisture on a fertilizer creates a saturated solution, which reacts like hell, and will render insoluble whatever can be insoluble in the formulation. That's why I love to make my fertilizers myself when I can  because there is no perfect solution.


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

Roth - so where are those metals going? Water makes them vanish into thin air?


----------



## Rick (Dec 5, 2011)

Roth said:


> To my mind the P and NH4 could be too low for certain growing conditions ( that was the issue for me and I think Wendy too with the MSU).



Xavier, the ammonia/nitrate thing is strongly influenced by alkalinity (bicarbonate) concentration. The water you described as typical in your practice had pretty high (I think >100 mg/L) alkalinity (as well as high hardness). Much of the water in the great lakes region (or if you add a bunch of oyster shell or limestone fines to your potting mix like Wendy does) also produces high alkalinity conditions around the roots that is favorable for higher % ammonia use.

Most of us using the MSU type ferts are using RO, rainwater, or other very low alkalinity waters (with acidic-neutral potting mixes) which favors the high Nitrate % based ferts.

This is an area that I'm pretty sure we can't make a one fert fits all condition.

If my memory serves me, the MSU well water vs MSU pure water formulas not only had differences in Ca/Mg concentrations but also the % of ammonia vs nitrate to compensate for the generally increased alkalinity of many well waters.


----------



## Roth (Dec 5, 2011)

Ray said:


> Roth - so where are those metals going? Water makes them vanish into thin air?



No, they become purely and completely insoluble as a fact... I made enough analysis of solutions, TC media, etc.. to know it, and it is basic chemistry. 

Even the MS sold in powder by Sigma, when dissolved, prepared, and analyzed, does not have the same composition as a MS made directly from stock solutions.

When the moisture content of a powder increases, it makes a saturated solution, highly reactive. As a result, the Calcium replaces the iron in the EDTA ( it is even worse with EDDHA), and the free iron will react with phosphate, becomes insoluble. A part of the free iron will oxidize as rust, not too soluble either. 

The calcium from the calcium nitrate mixed with a phosphate containing powder, when it starts to takes up moisture, will give calcium phosphate. 

You can have a try, if you make the real solution from stocks, you get a crystal clear solution. If you use fertilizers, or mix the powders, wait a bit, you will see it becomes cloudy. This cloud is made of precipitates... In fact, the hydratation molecules of calcium nitrate, when it is in contact with phosphate salts, can be enough to make that precipitate.

You can try too to prepare the oligos solution of the MSU at a 1000x concentration in solution too, wait about a day or two, you will see the precipitate of iron ( and analysis confirmed a loss), most likely because of the boron in this case.

Rick, if I suggest to slightly increase the ammonium, it is to make the final fertilizer suitable for more types of water. I think at 125ppm total N, if about 20 comes from ammonium, that would be really fine...


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

Xavier, I cannot argue with a single point - but if the composition is made into a solution from the start, it is easier.

There is a lot of manipulation to be done to achieve what we're shooting for.


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 5, 2011)

well, just like the msu stuff, there could be a rainwater and a hard water version


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Dec 5, 2011)

On a side note.....I've been using lowP/lowK for about 2 months now. I'm too wary to say yet that this is a direct result...as I said, I can maybe say after a year or 2, but at this moment in time, my paphs, especially, but not only, the ones under lights are doing very well. Leaves are hard and turgid, growth is good...and suddenly a whole bunch of plants are spiking, some far earlier in their growth cycle than expected...including 3 delanatii's (1 of them album), wardii- which only was in spike 4 months ago, and quite possibly topperi. I'll get back with a better opinion in a year......


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2011)

Charles.

I think that we'll pretty much have to start with a single formula...


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 5, 2011)

I vote for low hardness water formula (since that's what I have...  )


----------



## tocarmar (Dec 5, 2011)

I would like to know how this would work with terrestrial orchids ( Cyps.)??? I am trying to follow this but I'm not a chemist.  I would like to try it but would need a small batch as I am down to under 50 plants in house, maybe split it with someone!!! I use rain water, my tap is very hard with a water softner (culligan system)..


----------



## Rick (Dec 5, 2011)

cnycharles said:


> I vote for low hardness water formula (since that's what I have...  )



Low hardness or low alkalinity?

The alkalinity is what dictates the form of nitrogen to use.

However when MSU came up with the well water formula the knew that there is a general trend/correlation that natural high hardness waters also have a high alkalinity.

But hardness is based on the sum of Ca/Mg while alkalinity is based on bicarbonates, carbonates,and hydroxides.

You can make a solution of Ca/Mg salts (chlorides, sulfates, nitrates) that will have extreme hardness, but no alkalinity.

A solution of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) in RO water has no hardness, but very high alkalinity.


----------



## cnycharles (Dec 5, 2011)

low both, nothing in water, that makes it simple


----------



## Ray (Dec 6, 2011)

Bill emailed me that you cannot mix mag sulfate with calcium nitrate in concentrated form without resulting in precipitation (as Stone forewarned). He also offered the 2-component angle - mix A & B to a dilute solution - but I don't think that would work for those of us with metering pumps needing a concentrate to start with.


----------



## Rick (Dec 6, 2011)

Ray said:


> Bill emailed me that you cannot mix mag sulfate with calcium nitrate in concentrated form without resulting in precipitation (as Stone forewarned). He also offered the 2-component angle - mix A & B to a dilute solution - but I don't think that would work for those of us with metering pumps needing a concentrate to start with.



Where does that leave us option wise.

Personally since I don't use concentrated superstocks, I wouldn't have precipitation problems.

So do we need to include a design criteria that we need to be able to use proportioners?


----------



## Brabantia (Dec 6, 2011)

gonewild said:


> When the dry fertilizer becomes wet with absorbed moisture is there any degradation or change in the composition that would alter the nutrient values?
> 
> Would be great if someone could figure out how to package a fertilizer like this in "tea bags" that were individually sealed to keep out moisture. Then a person could just put one "tea bag" in a gallon of water, let steep then fertilize the plants with it.


Excellent idea but probably very expensive.


----------



## Ray (Dec 6, 2011)

He thinks he can get a pretty strong version in a liquid solution - about 7%N - and favors that, as he expects the powders to be SO strongly deliquescent that it will be difficult to repackage for distribution.

As I'm the person who volunteered to do that, I believe I'll opt for a liquid, at least through our testing. Yeah, the shipping costs will be higher, but not all that much more so.


----------



## keithrs (Dec 6, 2011)

Did he give you a final NPK? Also, How many gal. do you have to order?


----------



## Roth (Dec 6, 2011)

Ray said:


> Bill emailed me that you cannot mix mag sulfate with calcium nitrate in concentrated form without resulting in precipitation (as Stone forewarned). He also offered the 2-component angle - mix A & B to a dilute solution - but I don't think that would work for those of us with metering pumps needing a concentrate to start with.



Mmmh... you can mix calcium nitrate and magnesium sulfate, if you add to the blend urea phosphate. urea phosphate has a very low pH, and it allows for making a powdered version of a calcium and magnesium fertilizer. You dissolve it to make the concentrate for the dosatron or whatever, and correct he pH just before use ( but the solution will remain stable for a very short time, and for sure it has to be used at a lower than usual pH, something like 5.2 would be fine for the concentrate to be diluted). Unfortunately, I am pretty sure it has been patented by Scotts...

It can work as well with a 2 component sold to mix in equal parts before use with the metering pump. If the magnesium, calcium, etc... are stabilized with citric acid, and the component 2 is something like potassium bicarbonate, or ammonium bicarbonate to recorrect the pH, it would leave a few hours before the concentrate precipitates.


----------



## Ray (Dec 7, 2011)

I agree on the citric acid. It's already in the MSU fertilizers.


----------



## Ray (Dec 7, 2011)

keithrs said:


> Did he give you a final NPK? Also, How many gal. do you have to order?


The proposed powder formula was posted earlier, so you should think of the liquid as something near a 50-60% solution of it. Bill told me that as a powder, I could get as little as a single 25# bag, so I'm guessing at about 5 gallons minimum.


----------



## Jim Toomey (Dec 7, 2011)

I'm still interested!


----------



## Roth (Dec 7, 2011)

Then, when everything is nearly, ready, run the final formulations in MINTEQA, change the parameters from -2 degrees celsius to +35 degrees, and see how it holds. It is pretty accurate to predict precipitates... and you can know how to store it, when to ship it, and specific recommendations.

As an aside note, Jerry Wundergrow had heavy insoluble precipitate. I don't know what it was, but the final usable formulation was way different from his patent to my mind. 

Thinking about Rick idea on the potassium, and the fact that potassium is relocated from dying old parts of the plants to newer parts ( like sodium, that' why sodium poisoning is very difficult to revert, the sodium moves to the newer parts...), It would explains too why plants that had a chlorosis in coconut are very slow to recover, and are 'allergic' for some years to coconut. I have seen yellow hangianum in coconut, they became green again, but shall any coco chips approach their roots again, they would become yellow within days.

One more observation, in flasks, with some media ( MS), I have seen the brown rot of paphs ( as described by people). Old growths become brown, die, the rhizome die, and the whole plant die up to the new growth, which dies itself of a kind of browning. Except that on seedlings in flask it cannot be a pathogen. Rick idea about the potassium may well be the answer... ( MS is very heavy on potassium).


----------



## gonewild (Dec 7, 2011)

Roth said:


> Then, when everything is nearly, ready, run the final formulations in MINTEQA, change the parameters from -2 degrees celsius to +35 degrees, and see how it holds. It is pretty accurate to predict precipitates... and you can know how to store it, when to ship it, and specific recommendations.
> 
> As an aside note, Jerry Wundergrow had heavy insoluble precipitate. I don't know what it was, but the final usable formulation was way different from his patent to my mind.
> 
> ...



Great observations.
The part about the coconut makes perfect sense. But just to clarify your point... The plants are not "allergic" to coconut but instead may be "allergic" to the potassium contained in coconut. It may prove out that coconut becomes a better media when little or no potassium is added with fertilizer. Coconut may prove to be a good source of potassium if added to media that is fertilized with low potassium fertilizer.


----------



## eggshells (Dec 7, 2011)

Didn't Antec said that the cation exchange capacity of chc is weird? Well not weird but I don't know how to word it but the potassium and sodium strongly binds to the chc. Thats why initial treatment with calcium nitrate and magnesium sulfate is essential. That may also explain why many people are saying that they are having good results with chc initially but then it comes to the point that they decline. Maybe Sodium and potassium buildup because leaching doesn't really remove it. 

Its a shame because chc as a medium is is good on holding moisture and retaining its shape. Rick's low K feeding regime might be the answer but I would not totally omit potassium because plant still needs it.


----------



## keithrs (Dec 7, 2011)

Hydro guys that use chc or coco also flush there media with a flushing agent after every feeding that removes all salts in the media. If one going to use a flushing agent be careful on how strong you start with. 


They also use "special" fertilizers because of the K exchange rate.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 7, 2011)

eggshells said:


> Its a shame because chc as a medium is is good on holding moisture and retaining its shape. Rick's low K feeding regime might be the answer but I would not totally omit potassium because plant still needs it.



Yes the plant still needs potassium. But remember the chc already has potassium so there is no need to add it with the fertilizer. The plant can take potassium from the chc so it does not need or want it in the fertilizer.
So growing in chc may be improved with total ommission of pottassium in the fertilizer.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 7, 2011)

keithrs said:


> Hydro guys that use chc or coco also flush there media with a flushing agent after every feeding that removes all salts in the media. If one going to use a flushing agent be careful on how strong you start with.



What is the flushing agent? Do you know a name for it or a link to the product?



> They also use "special" fertilizers because of the K exchange rate.


[/QUOTE]

Maybe fertilizer without potassium?


----------



## keithrs (Dec 7, 2011)

gonewild said:


> What is the flushing agent? Do you know a name for it or a link to the product?



It a chemical used to flush salts out of mediums.... Drip clean, Royal flush, sludge hammer are a few

Sludge Hammer

Royal Flush

Drip Clean



> Maybe fertilizer without potassium?



They generally don't lower the P or K, just formulate it differently so the bond is not as strong and add lime or a high mark of Ca to rise the PH of the substrate and make it more stable.... They rely on the grower to use a flushing agent.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 7, 2011)

keithrs said:


> It a chemical used to flush salts out of mediums.... Drip clean, Royal flush, sludge hammer are a few
> 
> Sludge Hammer
> 
> ...



The only one that lists ingredients was "Drip Clean"...
"Derived From: Phosphoric Acid and Potassium oxide"

Based on that I doubt it's usefulness for orchid growing. And flushing with potassium and phosphorous will not lower the potassium level in the media but rather increase it.



> They generally don't lower the P or K, just formulate it differently so the bond is not as strong and add lime or a high mark of Ca to rise the PH of the substrate and make it more stable.... They rely on the grower to use a flushing agent.



They raise the pH to benefit the P and K then flush it with acid which would lower the pH? 

Maybe this has more use for true hydroponics or in soil less culture?


----------



## Rick (Dec 7, 2011)

The cation exchange capacities have been documented for CHC, bark, and sphagnum moss. Also even at complete exchange download there is still residual K locked into old dead cells (remember how you used to get potash?).

There have been studies that showed, yes fresh CHC has K in it. That is not surprising given above. But I have not seen any studies analyzing for K content after 6 months to a year of being used in a potting mix, and getting hit with 100+ ppm K from fertilizer once a week.

Given the reaction of plants in organic based potting mixes (I don't care if its bark, CHC, or dead moss) and knowledge of the CEC potential of these products my guess is that old mixes probably have orders of magnitude more K in them at the end of a relatively short time than they do at the beggining of trial.

Subsequently you may be fertilizing at 100 ppm K once a week, but the plant ends up sitting in a constant sink of 1000 mg/Kg K of potting mix after a few months of a heavy fertilizing campaign. Root burn???


----------



## Stone (Dec 7, 2011)

Rick said:


> The cation exchange capacities have been documented for CHC, bark, and sphagnum moss. Also even at complete exchange download there is still residual K locked into old dead cells (remember how you used to get potash?).
> 
> There have been studies that showed, yes fresh CHC has K in it. That is not surprising given above. But I have not seen any studies analyzing for K content after 6 months to a year of being used in a potting mix, and getting hit with 100+ ppm K from fertilizer once a week.
> 
> ...



From the information that I have, K and Ca do not cause toxicity (in plants) in the same way as we see from eg. Cu, Zn, Nh4 etc. but rather an over-supply of one shows up as a dificiency of the other.

Some of the old orchid books I have recommend dipping or drenching pots in free lime water ( Calcium hydroxide ) once or twice a year to help counter the acidity caused by frequent ammonium or urea use. ( some of the old timers in our society haven't even heard of Cal Nitrate! ) No doubt this also helped flush out some of the K build up as well as restore some Ca.

I used to do this a few years back and the temporarily high ph lift didn't seem to cause any issues that I could notice. Even better than hydrated lime would be a Dolomite solution ( for Mg ) although its probably hugely less soluble. The modern use of Nitrates probably does away with the need to soak in lime water. But it still could help as a ''quick fix''.

And another thing :rollhappy: when considering K, or other nurients for that matter, don't we need to take into account the suface area of our individual mix ingredients? For instance its only the first couple of mm of a piece of bark which interacts with plant roots compared to All of a piece of chc. A mix made up of fern fiber, leaves, moss ect will have infinately higher surface area
than one made of large pieces of bark and stones hence potetially more availability of nutrients. shouldn't we be feeding at a much reduced rate with these fiberous type media?
Also we need to be aware of the fact that bark behaves differently from fresh/clean to say 6 months in a pot when humus formation from bacteria means that Cation exchange/nutrient /water holding capacities go higher and higher with increasing age. This suggests reducing feed rate along with the time a plant occupies a pot?


----------



## Rick (Dec 7, 2011)

Stone said:


> And another thing :rollhappy: when considering K, or other nurients for that matter, don't we need to take into account the suface area of our individual mix ingredients? For instance its only the first couple of mm of a piece of bark which interacts with plant roots compared to All of a piece of chc. A mix made up of fern fiber, leaves, moss ect will have infinately higher surface area
> than one made of large pieces of bark and stones hence potetially more availability of nutrients. shouldn't we be feeding at a much reduced rate with these fiberous type media?
> Also we need to be aware of the fact that bark behaves differently from fresh/clean to say 6 months in a pot when humus formation from bacteria means that Cation exchange/nutrient /water holding capacities go higher and higher with increasing age. This suggests reducing feed rate along with the time a plant occupies a pot?



I think this goes along with what I was stating in the last post. Yes, actual surface area of CHC is much greater than bark (probably comparable to dead/compacted sphagnum moss). CHC is like bundles of straws and does have a very high surface area per volume ratio. That is why it became so popular as a water retentive material compared to bark.

A big part of what got me started on the basket method and this nutrition thing was the relative ease of culture for my mounted plants (including Vandas hanging from wires) that just wasn't comparable to stuff in potting mixes in pots.

However my mounted plants including the wire mounted Vandas are doing so much better under the low K regime, so the nutrition question is not just an artifact of the potting mix.


----------



## Rick (Dec 7, 2011)

Stone said:


> From the information that I have, K and Ca do not cause toxicity (in plants) in the same way as we see from eg. Cu, Zn, Nh4 etc. but rather an over-supply of one shows up as a dificiency of the other.



Off coarse different chemicals have different modes of action in organism cells for every life form on earth. Metabolism requires a bunch of coordinated activities with hundreds of interconnected pathways. 

But your statement of K and Ca only being toxic on the basis of antagonism while everything else causes narcosis is inaccurate. As a toxicologist I hear this all the time that just because something doesn't cause mortality at less than a ppm it should not be classified as a toxicant. Some clients that generate lots of TDS want the mortality effects of their effluent to be exempt from being considered as generating "toxicity" (and therefore exempt from regulation) because they think that osmosis should be considered a physical effect and not a chemical effect (and regulations are only supposed to consider "chemical" effects). I think they miss the point that dead is dead regardless at how much "chemical" it takes to cause metabolic disruption and physiological impact. 

Check out the tables on the below link. 

http://www.ladyslipper.com/minnut.htm

It's interesting on how excess K produces "deficiencies" for almost everything else on the chart (including some of the micronutrients) While "deficiency" symptoms caused by excesses of everything else are considerably more focused.


----------



## Stone (Dec 7, 2011)

Rick said:


> > But your statement of K and Ca only being toxic on the basis of antagonism while everything else causes narcosis is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 7, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na, Cl all have distinct recognizable toxicity symptoms when given in excess in plants such as burned margins and tips, yellow-black necrosis, cupping ,rolling, stunting etc. K and Ca do not but show up as deficenies of Ca and K respectively.
> ...


----------



## NYEric (Dec 8, 2011)

All this NKP talk is hurting my eyeballs! Can someone just tell me if there is a low K commercial fertilizer I can use?!


----------



## keithrs (Dec 8, 2011)

NYEric said:


> All this NKP talk is hurting my eyeballs! Can someone just tell me if there is a low K commercial fertilizer I can use?!



Grass folk my be your best shot..... 


Not that type of grass... the kind in your front yard... oke: :sob:


----------



## eggshells (Dec 8, 2011)

NYEric said:


> All this NKP talk is hurting my eyeballs! Can someone just tell me if there is a low K commercial fertilizer I can use?!



How about High N fertilizer.

http://www.rona.ca/shop/~fertilizer-orchid-fertilizer-25-10-10-plant-prod-236396_horticulture_shop

or that Grow more 30-10-10


----------



## keithrs (Dec 8, 2011)

eggshells said:


> How about High N fertilizer.
> 
> http://www.rona.ca/shop/~fertilizer-orchid-fertilizer-25-10-10-plant-prod-236396_horticulture_shop
> 
> or that Grow more 30-10-10



The Growmore 30-10-10 has a ton of urea in it and no Ca and I don't think it has Mg either.


----------



## gonewild (Dec 8, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na, Cl all have distinct recognizable toxicity symptoms when given in excess in plants such as burned margins and tips, yellow-black necrosis, cupping ,rolling, stunting etc. K and Ca do not but show up as deficenies of Ca and K respectively.
> ...


----------



## eggshells (Dec 8, 2011)

keithrs said:


> The Growmore 30-10-10 has a ton of urea in it and no Ca and I don't think it has Mg either.



Yeah I dont know the composition for that fertilizer however that 25-10-10 is a plant prod and Im not sure if NYEric can get it in the US. I add calmax on my RO water if not tap water to compensate of the lack of calcium and magnesium.


----------



## Stone (Dec 8, 2011)

I give up and officially declare this thread ---- dead!:clap:


----------



## NYEric (Dec 8, 2011)

Not nec. dead but this is was approaching the reason why I was so rested after every chemistry class!


----------



## gonewild (Dec 8, 2011)

Stone said:


> I give up and officially declare this thread ---- dead!:clap:



As the thread originator I declare you out of order. :wink:
Please refer to a quote from Post#1:


gonewild said:


> Let's try not to argue if it is a good idea or not but rather lay out what nutrients and sources a person could use if they want to use the low potassium growing method.



The thread is not dead just because you disagree with it's content. :fight:


----------



## Stone (Dec 8, 2011)

gonewild said:


> As the thread originator I declare you out of order. :wink:
> Please refer to a quote from Post#1:
> 
> 
> The thread is not dead just because you disagree with it's content. :fight:



Lance, don't take it too seriously, it was just a jokeoke:
It seems that the only way to go low K is to use exculsively bone meal or Cal nitrate/Mg Sulphate/Monoammonium phosphate or get one made up specially as has been disscused


----------



## SlipperKing (Dec 8, 2011)

Post one is so far back! I'm so glad you brought it forwad lance! I have a new question! Do these kinds of topics get brought up in other forums and do they, if brought up, go on *forever*? 
PS I never visit others. With this place I don't have the time!


----------



## Stone (Dec 8, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > > It may very well be that with low K levels the toxicity of P, Fe, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Mn, Na and Cl will be greatly reduced.
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 8, 2011)

Stone said:


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


----------



## Rick (Dec 8, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Rick should have kept quiet? :sob:
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Dec 8, 2011)

Stone said:


> Lance, don't take it too seriously, it was just a jokeoke:
> It seems that the only way to go low K is to use exculsively bone meal or Cal nitrate/Mg Sulphate/Monoammonium phosphate or get one made up specially as has been disscused



:rollhappy: If I was too serious you wold have known it!


----------



## gonewild (Dec 8, 2011)

SlipperKing said:


> Post one is so far back! I'm so glad you brought it forwad lance! I have a new question! Do these kinds of topics get brought up in other forums and do they, if brought up, go on *forever*?
> PS I never visit others. With this place I don't have the time!



I don't participate on other forums either. But I have read tons of archives from other forums. And the answer to your question is basically NO. Usually on forums after 4 or 5 pages people get in fights and the subject dies. That's too bad because usually there is a good amount of information being discussed and most of the time it ends without an answer. With this thread we have an example of discussion, mostly on topic or at least related, that is laying out ideas and concepts on how to improve plant growth. All of this info will be available for future reference by anyone in the world as long as SlipperTalk remains online.

We could have ended this thread with Ray's call to Bill Agro and he could have made a bag of fertilizer and sold it. But by continuing the discussion anyone who has an interest can learn and perhaps try some new ideas that are based on someone else's ideas. 

I've been involved with plant nutrition for a looong time and have never heard it suggested that potassium may be the cause of plants rotting easily. With what has been laid out by Rick it makes sense so who cares how much time it takes to talk about it. I hope this thread goes on for years.


----------



## Stone (Dec 8, 2011)

Rick said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a fixer. I can't stand to not have things work, and I can't stand to have things die when its preventable. One of the biggest guantlets thrown down (as they say) have been Roth's comments on how many cultivated seedlings and wild collected plants die in cultivation. If a species can survive in the wild with a fraction of the resources available in the GH there is no excuse to bury the amount of plant life we grow through in the hobby.
> ...


----------



## SlipperFan (Dec 8, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > There is a picture of a wharehouse in the Philppines full of collected Phal. schilleriana taken in 1900. there must be many thousands of plants. Recently, several TONS of P. vietnamense was supposedly taken. Every year, millions of seedlings are deflasked and sold. Where are they all?, 99.9% are dead. Gowing orchids is a daily commitment not many people are willing to make. They buy on a whim and then fail to follow through with the most basic of requirements. You can't just deflask some paphs, pot them up and forget them. It takes daily observation. All the required information to keep them alive is out there, yet people being what they are just ignore it or more likely lose interest. I have seen it so many times. Even experienced people lose plants that they needn't. No there is no excuse but it has always happened and it will continue to happen.
> ...


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Dec 8, 2011)

"Usually on forums after 4 or 5 pages people get in fights and the subject dies. "
That's why I love this place. Despite the occasional dispute or 2, and some of the interpersonal grudges by some members carried over from the mists of time, this is overall the most civilized, polite, and friendly forum I have ever participated in...orchids, reefs, fishing, neighborhood blog, whatever the subject, this one beats them all in terms of classy communication.


----------



## Rick (Dec 8, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Even experienced people lose plants that they needn't. No there is no excuse but it has always happened and it will continue to happen.
> ...


----------



## keithrs (Dec 9, 2011)

What a salesmen!!!! oke:


----------



## gonewild (Dec 9, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > > > Quote:
> ...


----------



## Stone (Dec 9, 2011)

gonewild said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > The lines you quoted are not my statements although I relate to the way Rick feels.
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Dec 9, 2011)

Stone said:


> gonewild said:
> 
> 
> > Huh?  Who said that and what the? Did you say or did I say that he said that my reply to your reply to his post about my post about your reply to the other guy's po... I'm confused and now I don't know what my name is
> ...


----------



## Rick (Dec 9, 2011)

This cut and paste paraphrasing is getting quotes pretty messed up.

Gotta be careful when deleting sections that you don't mess the code up marking the beginning and ending of the post.

I know the closer it gets to midnight the sloppier I get!


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2011)

OK. One 25# bag of powder is on order. (Aaron, the owner of Greencare, felt he could successfully make a powder form, without the deliquescence issue.)


----------



## keithrs (Dec 16, 2011)

Now we have to see how many people want to try it. The more people the cheaper its going to be for each person who wants to try it out. Make a new thread or stick with this one to get a tally?

Rick, How long did it take to see a difference in your plants? 

Trying to figure how many pounds one would need to make a judgement call if they like it or not.

How about the PPM of N? I think I'm going to go with the PPM that I use now which is about 80 PPM N.


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2011)

I'm not going to buy special containers - it will either be in my standard 2# screw-top jar (minimum portion), or I will heat seal it in a plastic bag for larger portions.


----------



## keithrs (Dec 16, 2011)

I'm fine with what ever. What ever is easier!


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2011)

Also, "the more the cheaper" is incorrect.

This stuff will have a delivered cost of "$X per pound" I will add my packaging cost, and that sets the pricing for the trial - plus shipping, of course.


----------



## gnathaniel (Dec 16, 2011)

I've been following the thread and I'm really interested in this formula; I'll get a container if you all need someone else to round things out (though 2# is about two years' worth for me). Ray, is the cost going to be close to the MSU you already sell or higher because it's a prototype?

--Nat


----------



## quietaustralian (Dec 16, 2011)

Stone said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > There is a picture of a wharehouse in the Philppines full of collected Phal. schilleriana taken in 1900. there must be many thousands of plants. Recently, several TONS of P. vietnamense was supposedly taken.
> ...


----------



## keithrs (Dec 17, 2011)

Ray said:


> Also, "the more the cheaper" is incorrect.
> 
> This stuff will have a delivered cost of "$X per pound" I will add my packaging cost, and that sets the pricing for the trial - plus shipping, of course.



Sorry Ray..... I assumed!


----------



## Stone (Dec 17, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Stone,
> ...


----------



## quietaustralian (Dec 18, 2011)

Stone said:


> quietaustralian said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Mick, sorry for the late reply but I just found your post.
> ...


----------



## Stone (Dec 18, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Mike,
> ...


----------



## quietaustralian (Dec 19, 2011)

I usually return to Australia for 3-4 months each year and bring back a few flasks.

That small colony of vietnamense is long gone. I know the area very well but could'nt show you a truly wild population of vietnamense.

Some years ago some plants were reintroduced and are now protected. Last year the first pods were sighted on these plants so it looks like there is a chance of a colony establishing. 

I'd recommend that you get some Paph Ho Chi Minh (vietnamense x delenatii) plants as you'll have a better chance of getting a nice flower with a longer bloom time. They turn up on eBay from time to time.

Mick


----------



## Ray (Dec 28, 2011)

Just a final (I hope) "parting shot" on this thread...

My low well water pH (4.7 is typical) is neutralized by the injection of potassium carbonate solution.

Before going to RO water, I saw a lot of rots. Afterwards - with no change in fogging/misting, or watering habits - they more or less went away.


----------



## Stone (Dec 28, 2011)

Ray said:


> Just a final (I hope) "parting shot" on this thread...
> 
> My low well water pH (4.7 is typical) is neutralized by the injection of potassium carbonate solution.
> 
> Before going to RO water, I saw a lot of rots. Afterwards - with no change in fogging/misting, or watering habits - they more or less went away.



Wow Ray thats pretty acidic water! What is making it so acid? have you had it tested?
Interestingly the Ph of rainwater running down the branches in Odontoglossum habitat in Ecuador was mesured at 4! I dont know what this means but it makes you wonder.
Are running the well water through RO system or mains water?


----------



## Rick (Dec 28, 2011)

Ray said:


> Just a final (I hope) "parting shot" on this thread...
> 
> My low well water pH (4.7 is typical) is neutralized by the injection of potassium carbonate solution.
> 
> Before going to RO water, I saw a lot of rots. Afterwards - with no change in fogging/misting, or watering habits - they more or less went away.




I didn't quite understand this at first, but if I'm getting this right, then before you switched to RO, you used your well water supplemented with a bit of K(carbonate) to irrigate with?


I've seen some crazy low well pH values usually coming off of granitic or sandstone systems. Often shallow wells too. In Pensylvania I think you have lots of granit geology around.


----------

